Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Glasgow Trades House Order Confirmation Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL,

"to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Minister of Transport under the General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861, relating to Bangor (county Down) and Tralee and Fenit," presented by Mr. ARTHUR NEAL.

Ordered, that Standing Order 193a be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the first time.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Bill accordingly read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 222.]

FALKIRK AND DISTRICT TRAMWAYS ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1899, relating to Falkirk and District Tramways," presented by Mr. MUNRO; and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered To-morrow.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS.

Return ordered, relating to Trustee Savings Banks for the years ending the 20th day of November, 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918, and 1919, showing for each such year:—

(1) In respect of Savings Banks established in England and Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and the Channel Islands, respectively, treated in the aggregate, and for the United Kingdom:—

(a) The number of such Banks;
(b) The number of accounts remaining open;
(c) The amount owing to depositors;
(d) The amount invested with the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, excluding the surplus fund; (e) The balance in the hands of the treasurers;
3
(f) The amount of the separate surplus fund in the hands of the Commissioners;
(g) The other assets, including the estimated value of the Bank premises, furniture, etc.;
(h) The total assets;
(j) The average rate of interest paid to depositors; (k) The annual expenses of management;
(l) The average rate per cent. per annum on the capital of the Banks represented by the expenses of management;
(m) The average cost of each transaction;
(n) The amount of Government Stock and Bonds standing to the credit of depositors;
(o) The number and amount of annuities in course of payment;
(2) For the United Kingdom:—
(p) The number of transactions of deposit in the year;
(q) The number of transactions of withdrawal in the year;

(3) In detail, for each Savings Bank separately, particulars similar to those required under (b), (c), (d),
(e), (f), (g), (h), (j), (k), and (n), to be rendered in respect of those Banks taken in the aggregate."—[Sir F. Banbury.]

REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND),

Return ordered, "showing for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1920, (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, to the Revenue collected by the Imperial officers; (2) the Expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, which are available for Imperial Expenditure (in continuation of Parliamentary Paper, No. 163, of Session 1919)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

CINEMATOGRAPH ACT, 1909,

Address for "Return of all the licensing minorities administering the Cinemato-
graph Act, 1909, and the name and location of all subsidiary authorities administering the Act by virtue of powers under the Act delegated by the regular licensing authorities to such bodies."—[Mr. Seddon.]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

TRADE STATISTICS.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether blank forms such as Z 8, issued during the War, are still being sent to employers asking for information as to the number of employés, idle plant, etc.; whether a number of employers now fail to return the forms; and what is the cost of the printing, issue, and examination of such forms?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to take this question. The return referred to has been transferred from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Labour, and a certain amount of duplication will be thereby avoided and considerable economy effected. The return is now issued to employers in a much less elaborate form than during the War, and the question of making the inquiry at less frequent intervals is under consideration. Most of the employers to whom it is issued furnish the information asked for. The cost of printing and of staff is estimated at about £6,400 per annum, which will be materially decreased if the inquiry is made at less frequent intervals.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Can the hon. Gentleman say exactly what purpose this return serves?

Sir M. BARLOW: It was found of great use during the War, and it is still of great utility.

Mr. WALLACE: Are these returns only partly completed, and what value are they statistically?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have said that most of the employers make the returns, and we find them of great utility.

Mr. WALLACE: If I put down a question, will the hon. Gentleman give the actual percentage of the returns completed?

Sir M. BARLOW: If the hon. Gentleman puts a question down, I will do my best to get the information.

Sir H. CRAIK: May I ask whether the continuance of this form and similar forms is not a reason and a pretext for increasing and continuing the present large number of officials?

Sir M. BARLOW: I do not think there is any justification for that, Sir.

HOSIERY GOODS (IMPORTS).

Major Sir KEITH FRASER: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the fact that the majority of the hosiery machinery installed during the War is now standing and much unemployment exists in consequence of the enormous import of foreign goods of similar make; and what steps he proposes to take to rectify this state of things?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Robert Horne): I know that unfortunately employment in the hosiery trade is not satisfactory, and that there have been considerable imports of certain descriptions of hosiery in recent months. In so far as these imports are sent here at dumped prices, the matter will be dealt with in the Anti-Dumping Bill which the Government has undertaken to introduce.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to introduce that Bill at an early date?

Sir R. HORNE: We propose to introduce the Bill at as early a date as we can.

Mr. TERRELL: Will it be this week or next week?

Sir R. HORNE: It is not possible to give more definite information.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to make any statement as to dealing with the question of the rate of exchange in connection with this problem?

Sir R. HORNE: That also forms part of the matters which are under consideration.

Sir J. D. REES: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when the Government proposes to take action to protect the hosiery, lace, and fabric glove trades from the dumping of foreign-made goods of the like character, made under more favourable circumstances at prices with which British manufacturers cannot compete?

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid that I cannot add anything to the answers given by the Prime Minister on the 28th October to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. G. Terrell).

MATCHES.

Mr. W. THORNE: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the exportation of foreign matches during August, 1920, grosses of standard 1 size boxes, and for the month of September, 1920?
May I say that the word "exportation" in the question should be "importation"? Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to answer the question in the amended form?

Sir R. HORNE: No, I am afraid I have an answer in the form of exportation.

Mr. THORNE: Then I will put it down for another day.

DYE-STUFFS.

Mr. EVELYN CECIL: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the rapid increase in the imports of dye-stuffs into this country during the last few months; whether they come in great part from Germany; and whether, having regard to the experience of the War and the importance of establishing a largely independent British industry of dyes and allied substances on grounds both of trade and national defence, His Majesty's Government will take further steps to safeguard its growth?

Sir R. HORNE: I am aware that the imports of dye-stuffs and intermediates into this country have increased very substantially during the last few months, and that a large proportion of these imports have been from Germany, though I must point out that these include a considerable quantity received from that country under the Reparation Clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer
my right hon. Friend to the answer which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Royton on the 20th July last, to the effect that in the opinion of the Government, the existence of a strong synthetic dye making industry is essential to the defence and security of the United Kingdom, and that in pursuance of the pledges given on several occasions, proposals to protect the industry for a time, so as to enable it to be placed on a secure foundation, will be embodied in a Bill relating to key industries, which will be introduced and proceeded with as soon as possible.

Mr. SHORT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no reduction in the cost of living despite all these importations?

Sir W. PEARCE: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the progress of British Dyes, in which undertaking the British Government have a large interest?

Sir R. HORNE: I think it is too large a question to ask in a general form whether I am satisfied with the progress. One ought never to be satisfied with any stage of progress.

Mr. G. TERRELL: When will a Bill for the preservation of key industries be introduced?

Sir R. HORNE: As soon as possible.
The following question stood on the Paper in the name of Mr. DOYLE.—
12. To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of the position of the British Dyes Corporation owing to the increasing and unrestricted importation of German dyes; what amount of Government and public funds, respectively, are invested in the undertaking; whether a guarantee was given that this key industry would be protected; and whether an agreed Bill will be introduced forthwith to safeguard this national asset?

Mr. DOYLE: On a point of Order. Ought not this question to be addressed to the Prime Minister as it involves a question of policy I May I ask if the President of the Board of Trade is prepared to reply?

Sir R. HORNE: I am prepared to reply to the question. I am informed that the subscribed capital of the British Dye Stuffs Corporation is £4,119,003 in preference shares of £1 each, £4,089,811 in preferred ordinary shares of £1 each, and £993,270 in deferred ordinary shares of £1 each. Of this, £850,001 preference shares and £850,000 preferred ordinary shares have been subscribed for by His Majesty's Government. As regards the remainder of the question, I would refer my Hon. Friend to the answer which I have given earlier to my right hon. Friend the member for Aston (Mr. E. Cecil).

Mr. DOYLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the 15th May, 1918, the President of the Board of Trade stated that the importation of all foreign dye-stuffs should be controlled by a system of licence for a period of not less than ten years after the War? That declaration was repeated by the President of the Board of Trade on 25th July, 1918, only more emphatically, and again on the 26th February; and, in view of that fact—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member ought to give the Minister some opportunity of verifying those quotations.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Are these licenses, as promised, in force at the present time?

Sir R. HORNE: Not yet.

Mr. DOYLE: In view of the serious condition of this national asset, the British dyes industry, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to introduce a Bill dealing specially with it?

Sir R. HORNE: I think it would be a great mistake to deal with only one industry. There are many others, also key industries, to be dealt with. I should prefer, and I am sure the House will find it more convenient, to deal with them altogether.

Mr. DOYLE: Are the other key industries to which the right hon. Gentleman refers, in as serious a condition, owing to the competition of foreign countries to which I refer?

Sir R. HORNE: Some of them more serious.

Mr. DOYLE: That is very serious indeed.

MANUFACTURED GOODS (IMPORTS).

Mr. G. TERRELL: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the House information of industries in this country which are being adversely affected so as to cause unemployment through the importation of foreign manufactured goods; and what course he proposes to take in regard to the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: I have received representations from various trades as to the competition of imported goods, but it is quite impossible to attribute the present unsatisfactory position in these trades to any one cause. As regards the second part of the question, if my hon. Friend has in mind the introduction of legislation to deal with dumping and key industries, I can only refer him to the Prime Minister's statement on the subject in this House on the 28th October.

Mr. TERRELL: Can my right hon. Friend give some definite information of the industries which are affected by importation, and some definite information as to the unemployment caused by if?

Sir R. HORNE: I have no doubt I could give definite information if I were asked a definite question.

Mr. TERRELL: Can my right hon. Friend give some definite information concerning the particular industries about which he states that representations have been made to him?

Sir R. HORNE: These are of a very wide character. Misrepresentations prevail in respect to these matters. Many people seem to regard dumping as selling at a price lower than the home price; that is quite an erroneous idea. Many people in the representations I have received, suggest anti-dumping legislation for causes which an anti-dumping Bill would not give relief at all.

Captain R. TERRELL: Can you give a definition of dumping?

Mr. W. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the highly-protected tariff countries unemployment is as deeply rooted as it is here?

Sir R. HORNE: I do not think it is necessary to reply to that question.

Dr. MURRAY: Would not a blockade be the best way to keep out all these things?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: Is it not a fact that a very large number of ex-service men are likely to lose their employment in these industries in the near future unless action is taken, and could not the right hon. Gentleman represent to the Prime Minister the desirability of a Saturday sitting in order to pass a measure to deal with anti-dumping?

Mr. WALLACE: May I put one simple question: Has the right hon. Gentleman traced in his own experience any unemployment in this country directly due to dumping? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."]

Sir R. HORNE: There is undoubtedly unemployment in the country at the present time, but I cannot say what are its particular dimensions. There is unemployment due to the fact that there are foreign similar goods being sold at less prices than the home manufacturers can sell them. But you have to take a very close survey of the situation in order to design a measure which will deal with it, and the House must really have patience in this matter.

Sir K. FRASER: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give particulars of the manufactured goods which have been imported from Germany and Austria during the present year; whether, having regard to the state of the German exchange, such goods are imported at prices against which British labour cannot compete, with the consequent result of unemployment; and what course he proposes to take in regard to the matter?

Sir R. HORNE: As far as relates to imports from Germany, I will have a statement showing the principal classes of manufactured articles imported during the first nine months of the current year printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Particulars of imports from Austria as defined in the Treaty of Peace are, I regret to say, not available for the period in question. The bearing of the state of the exchange on the competition of German goods in the British market and the question of taking action in consequence is engaging my attention.
The statement referred to above is as follows:—


REGISTERED IMPORTS OF GOODS, WHOLLY OR MAINLY MANUFACTURED, INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM, CONSIGNED FROM GERMANY, DURING THE NINE MONTHS ENDED 30TH SEPTEMBER, 1920.


Import List Description.
Unit of Quantity.
Quantity.
Value.



£


Glassware, domestic and fancy
…
…
…
Cwt.
69,983
386,139


" bottles and jars
…
…
…
"
158,844
235,136


Iron wire
…
…
…
…
…
…
Ton
6,375
273,001


Hollowware of iron and steel, enamelled
…
…
"
1,860
182,682


Clocks, complete
…
…
…
…
…
Number
1,177,003
383,865


Wool tops
…
…
…
…
…
…
Centals of 100 lbs.
12.006
501,040


Woollen and worsted yarns
…
…
…
Lb.
536,047
306,207


Silk ribbons
…
…
…
…
…
…
—
—
139,403


Silk broadstuffs (mixed)
…
…
…
…
Yard
2,504,213
599,373


Hosiery of cotton
…
…
…
…
…
—
—
214,211


Coal-tar dye-stuffs
…
…
…
…
…
Cwt.
31,487
1,399,027


Leather, dressed: box and willow calf
…
…
"
2,394
311,087


Paper, printing, not coated
…
…
…
"
97,190
274,626


" packing and wrapping
…
…
…
"
168,828
517,919


Motor cars, commercial
…
…
…
…
Number
5,389
1,545,407


Fancy goods
…
…
…
…
…
…
—
—
284,581


Furs and skins, dressed
…
…
…
…
Number
1,183,758
294,699


Musical instruments, complete
…
…
…
"
874,914
316,805


Toys and games, not of rubber or leather
…
—
—
934,830


Other goods
…
…
…
…
…
…
—
—
8,090,755


Total imports of manufactured articles
…
—
—
17,190,793

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not the fact that the Germans themselves have a very heavy export duty on their own manufactured goods in order to help to correct high prices elsewhere?

Sir R. HORNE: In some cases the Germans do attempt to compel the sale of goods in foreign countries at a level similar to that in the home country, the country of origin—that is undoubtedly so.

Mr. D. HERBERT: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that while he is giving this matter his consideration a number of concerns are actually discharging workmen at the present time owing to this question of the rate of exchange?

Sir R. HORNE: Yes, but the point is why are these workmen being discharged? Why is it that these goods are not able to compete with foreign goods? You cannot deal with a matter like that without thought and careful consideration, otherwise you would be doing far more harm than good.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFITEERING ACTS.

SUB-COMMITTEES (REPORTS).

Major BARNES: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what reports have been made by Sub-committees of the Central Profiteering Committee which have not been published; on what dates they were made; and when they will be published?

Sir R. HORNE: The following Reports have not been published: Costings in Government Departments Report, received on 4th February, 1920; Fixed Retail Prices (Second Report), received on the 10th June, 1920, and Uniform Clothing Report, received on the 6th October, 1920. The Reports on Costings in Government Departments and the Second Report on Fixed Retail Prices were not of sufficient urgency to be published now. The Report of Uniform Clothing is under consideration.

BUILDING MATERIALS.

Mr. KILEY: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give an approximate date as to when the Pro-
fiteering Committee's Report on Building Materials will be completed; and, if the complete Report is not likely to be ready during the present year, is he prepared to consider the desirability of appointing further sub-committees in view of the urgent necessity of some immediate action being taken to ensure an adequate supply of building commodities at reasonable prices?

Sir R. HORNE: As I informed the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire on the 20th October, Reports on Timber and Bricks have been published and presented to Parliament, and the Sectional Committee investigating Cement and Mortar hope to make their report shortly. While I am unable to give any approximate date when the Committees investigating Light Castings, Stone and Clay Ware will be in a position to report, I am satisfied, in view of the stage these investigations have reached, that the issue of these Reports would not be expedited by the appointment of other sub-committees.

Mr. KILEY: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, at all events during the current year, these committees will issue their reports; this committee has been sitting for something like nine months?

Sir R. HORNE: My hon. Friend will recollect that two important reports have already been made. In regard to the others, they are working hard upon them. He will also, I hope, bear in mind that these committees are composed of people who voluntarily give their services to the State in this matter, and while I can urge them to give their reports within a near period, I can do nothing to compel them.

Mr. KILEY: If these gentlemen cannot see their way to issue their report in the current year, could not some assistance be given them, in view of the urgency of the problem they are considering?

Sir R. HORNE: It will never expedite matters by setting up entirely new committees for them to begin de novo.

COST OF LIVING (INDEX FIGURES).

Major BARNES: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will appoint a departmental or other committee to inquire into and report on the method employed in arriving at the index figures of the cost of living?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have been asked to reply. The methods employed in arriving at the index numbers relating to the cost of living which are prepared in the Ministry of Labour were fully explained in the "Labour Gazette" for March last, and I am sending my hon. and gallant Friend an extract from that issue of the Gazette, containing the desired information. As regards the suggestion that a committee should be appointed to inquire into the methods employed, I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that a committee on the cost of living, under the chairmanship of Lord Sumner, made such an inquiry in 1918, and if he wishes I will have a copy of the report sent him.

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES.

ENEMY DEBTS, BRITISH CLEARING HOUSE.

Commander Viscount CURZON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the percentage of the 34,000 claims lodged with the German clearing house by the British clearing house prior to 15th May last that were undisputed by the German clearing house on expiry of the time limit fixed by the Treaty of Peace at 15th August, 1920; whether these undisputed claims have yet been paid by the British clearing house; and, if not, what authority have the British clearing house for withholding the money due to British claimants or for varying the terms of the Peace Treaty, which provides that claims cannot be disputed by the Germans after the expiry of the time limit on 15th August for the claims lodged before 15th May last?

Sir R. HORNE: Of the 34,000 claims referred to, 40 per cent. had been admitted by the 15th August and have been paid. The remaining 60 per cent. were either contested by the German clearing office, or the time for dealing with them was extended under the provisions of the Treaty. As to the third part of the question, I would refer my Noble Friend to the reply which I am giving to-day to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Skipton (Lieut.-Colonel Roundell).

Major BREESE: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Treaty of Peace provides that British claims lodged by the British clearing house with the German clearing house on
or before 15th May, 1920, can only be disputed by the German clearing house not later than 15th August, 1920; whether a large number of claims were lodged by the British authorities on or before 15th May, 1920; whether such of them as have not been disputed by the German authorities on or before 15th August, 1920, have been paid by the British authorities to the British claimants; and, if not, what legal right, under the Treaty of Peace or the British Common Law, has the British clearing house to withhold payment till now of claims undisputed by the German clearing house within the time limit?

Colonel ROUNDELL: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the minimum period of three months, prescribed by paragraph 7 of the Annexe to Article 296 of the Treaty of Peace, has been departed from by the British Clearing House for enemy debts; if so, by what Parliamentary sanction; and, whether he is aware that in that case funds belonging to British creditors are being retained by the British Clearing House in contravention of the terms of the Treaty of Peace?

Sir R. HORNE: Owing to the magnitude and complexity of the task imposed upon both the British and German Clearing Offices, it has been necessary to extend the minimum period referred to in the case of both offices in accordance with the discretion accorded by paragraph 7 of the Annexe to Article 296. The Parliamentary sanction for this action on the part of the British Office is the Treaty of Peace Act, 1919. In reply to the third part of the question, no funds are applicable for payment to British creditors of their debts until these have been admitted or found due in accordance with the terms of the Treaty.

Major BREESE: Has any date been fixed limiting the period within which the Germans may pay?

Sir R. HORNE: I am not sure I follow the question of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but the date has been extended by reason of the difficulties found by both offices in making the necessary arrangements. Both offices are endeavouring to clear up all these matters as rapidly as possible.

GERMAN NATIONALS' PROPERTY.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government have recently informed the German Government that they do not intend to exercise their rights, under the Treaty of Versailles, to seize the property of German nationals in this country in the case of voluntary default by Germany; and will he state the reasons which have induced the Government to grant this concession to Germany, especially having regard to the wilful and malicious destruction by Germans of ships and airships assigned to the Allies, including Great Britain, under the said Treaty?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave on this subject on Thursday last to the right hon. Member for Camborne.

Mr. HURD: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether the decision of the Government affecting the liability of German property in the United Kingdom to seizure under the Peace Treaty was announced in the Board of Trade Journal of 21st October or seven days prior to its announcement to the House of Commons; and whether steps will be taken to ensure that the first announcement of important decisions of policy affecting our relations with other powers shall be made in Parliament and not in departmental journals?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I endeavour, as far as possible, to give the House the first information of decisions of importance, but when the House is in recess this cannot always be done. I may add that in the particular decision to which the question refers, no important question of policy was involved.

Mr. HURD: Might not some part at least of the misapprehension arising in France on this question have been obviated, if the first announcement had been made in this House in the full form in which it was made by the right hon. Gentleman last Thursday?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir, but I think much misapprehension would have been obviated if our message to the French Government, to the Council of Ambassadors, and to the Reparation Committee had got through as rapidly as it
should have done. I am very sorry for the delay, and inquiry is being made of the Department in which it arose.

Captain COOTE: Is it not the fact that the French Government have done precisely the same thing with regard to Bulgarian property in France as we have done in respect of the German property here?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is not precisely the same thing, I should not care to justify action which is justifiable on its merits by comparisons with action taken by another power with regard to Bulgaria.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL STRIKE.

PRIVATE CONSUMERS (PRICE).

Captain R. TERRELL: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the suggested settlement in the coal dispute will mean any increase to the private consumer in the price of the article; and, if so, to what extent and on what method of assessment?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Bridgeman): The terms of the suggested coal settlement provide that, pending the submission to the Government of a scheme for the regulation of wages in the industry, the proposed increases in miners' wages shall be regulated by, and met out of the proceeds of export coal, and not by an increase in the pithead price of coal for inland consumption.

WAGES.

Colonel NEWMAN: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is able to give the assurance that for the full period that any man shall deliberately abstain from work during the present strike in the coal industry no part of the wages that he has forfeited or may forfeit shall be directly or indirectly made up to him from any public funds?

Mr. BRIDGEMAN: I am not quite sure if I fully apprehend the purport of the question put by my hon. and gallant Friend, but, as far as the Mines Department is concerned, no wages will be paid to men for the period during which they have been on strike.

EARL HAIG AND PRIME MINISTER'S APPEALS.

Mr. MALONE: 32.
asked the Prime Minister what Department is responsible for the display of posters now displayed throughout the country containing appeals from Lord Haig and himself concerning the miners' question; what cost was involved in publishing these statements; whether the money was provided from public funds?
In putting the question, I would like to point out that the words "ex parte appeals calculated to prejudice the miners' case" have been struck out of the question, and other words substituted.

Sir R. HORNE: I have been asked to reply. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary gave in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Workington on the 25th October. I accept full responsibility for the publication of the Prime Minister's message to the nation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

CHARS-A-BANC (HAND SIGNALS).

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 20.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he intends issuing an Order compelling all commercial motor vehicles and chars-à-banc to carry mechanical hand signals at the rear of the vehicle; whether the Ministry have received representations concerning the desirability of such signals in the interests of safety; and whether practical designs for such signals submitted by Mr. P. Watson Phillips are under consideration?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Sir Eric Geddes): The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part of the question, I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Hammersmith (North) on the 19th of last month. Any designs submitted will receive the attention they merit, but I do not propose that the Ministry should adopt or recommend any particular design or invention.

RAILWAY AGREEMENT, 1914.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: 22.
asked the Minister of Transport the names of the representatives of the various British railway companies who negotiated and signed the Railway Agreement of 1914?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Railway Agreement of 1914 was negotiated between the Government and the railway executive committee, composed of the general managers of eleven of the principal railway companies. The agreement was then accepted by each separate company of which control had been taken.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Did the then manager of the North Eastern Railway have any part in the negotiations?

Sir E. GEDDES: Not after the outbreak of War.

Captain TERRELL: May we have the names of the railway companies concerned?

Sir E. GEDDES: Those who entered into the agreement?

Captain TERRELL: Yes.

Sir E. GEDDES: All the controlled companies entered into the agreement.

Mr. HIGHAM: Who signed the agreement on behalf of the Government?

Sir E. GEDDES: I would like notice of that question.

RAILWAY STATIONS (TELEPHONES).

Mr. ROYCE: 23.
asked the Minister of Transport whether a great saving of rolling stock as well as of time and money would result if the railway stations in agricultural districts were connected with the public telephone; and whether he can bring pressure on the railway companies to instal this necessary convenience?

Sir E. GEDDES: I have made further inquiries since the answer which was given to the hon. Member on this subject on the 10th December last. The view of the companies is that the expense which would be incurred by the installation of telephones cannot generally be justified. I am sending to the, hon. Member a copy of a letter which was written on the 5th August to the Holland County branch of the National Farmers' Union on this subject.

RAILWAY MATERIALS, FRANCE.

Mr. ROYCE: 24.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the Disposal Board have for sale in France about 80 miles of 4 feet 8½ inches gauge track, 75 lbs. per lineal yard rails, with
sleepers and fastenings complete in excellent condition, very suitable for agricultural light railways; whether this material can be delivered in England at 40 per cent. less than it can be purchased here; and whether, in view of the Government's promise to construct agricultural light railways, this material can be secured for that purpose?

Sir E. GEDDES: The Ministry of Munitions are at present in communication with the Director-General of Liquidation of British War Stocks in France on the subject of the materials referred to. As soon as the information is available I will communicate further with the hon. Member.

ISLE OF WIGHT STEAMBOAT SERVICES.

Captain Sir DOUGLAS HALL: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Transport why he has completely suspended the steam packets service from Southampton to Cowes and back; if he is aware that these boats bring most of the meat and foodstuffs to the island, and also have a large stock of coal; if he is also aware that the suspension of these steamboats will necessitate the closing of a large number of works in the Isle of Wight; if he is also aware that the steamboat service between Lymington and Yarmouth and back has been entirely suspended, and that this unfortunate island, with a population approximating 100,000 inhabitants, is almost entirely cut off from the mainland; and if he can see his way to reconsider his decision to suspend the Cowes-Southampton service as well as the Lymington-Yarmouth service so as to bring the present means of communication to the Isle of Wight more on a par with other towns in Great Britain where the railway service has only been slightly curtailed.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Colonel Wilson): I have been asked to reply. The Southampton-Cowes and Lymington-Yarmouth services have been temporarily suspended after consultation with the Ministry of Transport and the Food Ministry. It has been necessary to restrict all cross-Channel and island services in view of the urgent necessity in the present crisis of conserving supplies of bunker coal. I am informed by the Food Ministry that the Portsmouth-Ryde twice daily sailings fully cover the re-
quirements of that Ministry. I regret I am not in a position to make any alteration at present.

Sir D. HALL: May I ask why the Isle of Wight is more harshly treated than any ordinary station on the main line where the service is only curtailed slightly, and why the only entrance to the island is the port of Ryde?

Colonel WILSON: The Isle of Wight is not more harshly treated than any other island or any other part of the Kingdom; it has two sailings daily and all the essential services of the island are being maintained.

Sir D. HALL: Why should the people who live in the far western part of the island, the people at Yarmouth, for instance, who wish to get to the mainland, have to come to Ryde? Why should the service to the Isle of Wight be curtailed in this way when the service is only partially curtailed in the case of any station in Great Britain?

Colonel WILSON: With respect to the communication from Yarmouth to the mainland, via Ryde, no doubt it is inconvenient to the people residing at Yarmouth, but the inconvenience they are suffering is no greater, in fact it is less, than other people have been suffering elsewhere

Dr. MURRAY: Is it not a fact that the most harshly treated island is the Island of Lewis, where the service is three times a week, compared with six times a week for the last 40 years? This is the new-world that you have given to the Island of Lewis.

WAR (TERMINATION DATE).

Mr. MILLS: 26.
asked the Prime Minister if he can inform the House when it will be possible to declare the end of the War period, having in mind the insecurity and uncertainty resulting from the present state of affairs?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Lord Privy Seal on Wednesday last to a question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine and Western.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

JOINT SUBSTITUTION BOARD.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: 27.
asked the Prime Minister what are the functions of the Joint Substitution Board recently set up by the Treasury; and what steps are taken by the Board to obtain employment for ex-service men who have been employed in a Government Department, and whose services have had to be dispensed with owing to reduction of staff?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): As recommended in the Interim Report of Lord Lytton's Committee, which is considering the appointment of ex-service men to posts in the Civil Service, the functions of the Joint Substitution Board are to watch over the work of Departmental substitution committees in placing ex-service men, and to place qualified ex-service men reported redundant by Departments. All departments of the Civil Service are required, when giving warning notice to any temporary ex-service member of their staff, to notify the Joint Substitution Board of the fact and of the man's qualifications; and the Board thereupon endeavour to-allot to all qualified men, so notified, another temporary post in the Civil Service.

LAND SETTLEMENT.

Captain COOTE: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the moneys voted by Parliament for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Land Settlement Act are about to be exhausted; that many county councils have already expended the sums allotted to them; that this means that it has cost £20,000,000 to put about 9,000 men on the land; whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to ask Parliament to vote further sums for this purpose; and, if so, whether he can give any guarantee that such sums will be more economically expended?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Sir A Boscawen): It is not correct to say that the moneys voted by Parliament for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Land Settlement Act are about to be exhausted, or that it has cost £20,000,000 to put about 9,000 men on the land. The land already acquired,
namely, 259,489 acres, will have cost, when fully equipped, about £15,000,000 for purchase, buildings, roads, water supply, etc., and some 17,200 men will be settled on this area. The present position of Land Settlement in England and Wales has recently been thoroughly investigated by a Cabinet Committee, and a letter is about to be addressed by the Ministry to each county council embodying the decisions which have been reached, and inter alia, stating that additional funds will be provided by the Treasury for Land Settlement purposes.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRELAND.

EXPLCSIVE BULLETS.

Sir W. DAVISON: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that terrible wounds are daily being inflicted on soldiers and police in many parts of Ireland by expanding flat-nosed bullets, contrary to the usages of all civilised warfare and the Geneva Convention, but that the appropriate penalty of death cannot be inflicted on persons found in possession of such illegal instruments of warfare owing to the fact that martial law has not been formally proclaimed; and whether he will take immediate steps to have martial law proclaimed in all districts where such illegal warfare is being carried on, so that persons found in possession of these foul instruments may be shot and our gallant soldiers and police protected from mutilation and agonising death?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to a question on this subject by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Southport on Monday last.

Sir W. DAVISON: Did the Chief Secretary not state that the reason why the men found in possession of explosive bullets could not be apprehended was that martial law had not been proclaimed?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, I do not think so. I do not think that can be done without special legislation.

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: In view of the appalling wounds caused by these expanding bullets, will the right hon. Gentleman
consider the whole question afresh? Surely some special course must be taken against these horrible and ghastly atrocities.

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree that this adds to the atrocious character of the outrages which have been perpetrated, and, if it were possible within the power of the law to mark our resentment of such conduct and do more than we are doing to repress it, the House may depend upon it that the authorities there will exercise all the powers they possess, but our information is that it cannot be done without fresh legislation.

Sir W. DAVISON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to whether a proclamation of martial law would not enable the authorities in a given district to apprehend persons found in possession of expanding bullets?

The PRIME MINISTER: They could be apprehended now and punished, but that is not quite the point. The question is whether punishment of death can be inflicted. Severe punishment can be inflicted if they are discovered, but the penalty of death cannot be inflicted without some special legislation. I may tell my hon. Friend that that is one of the things we are considering, and we may have to take certain action and ask the House to pass the necessary legislation.

REPRISALS (POLICE AND MILITARY).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has yet received the Report of the Court of Inquiry into the deaths of Frank d'Dwyer and Edward O'Dwyer, sons of William O'Dwyer, farmer, of Ballydavid, near Bansha, who were dragged from their father's house by uniformed men on the night of the 18th October and shot dead; whether he is aware that shots were fired into the bedroom where the aged father and mother were lying; whether he has received information as to the identity of the uniformed men who arrived in motor lorries at the house of Patrick Doyle, of Ballygar, near French Park, county Roscommon, dragged him out, and shot him dead on the same night; and what steps does he propose to take to prevent a repetition of these deeds?

The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Lieut.-Colonel Sir Hamar Greenwood): I have not yet seen the Report of
the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry into the circumstances attending the deaths of the brothers O'Dwyer, and I understand that the Court has not yet given its finding. As regards the case of Patrick Doyle I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar question put to me by the hon. and gallant Member on the 27th ultimo.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct the Court of Inquiry into the O'Dwyer case to call before that Court the special correspondents of English newspapers who have sent special accounts about this, and take their evidence, seeing that otherwise only people who are under police intimidation come before that Court?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: If the hon. Member can give me the names of any actual eye-witnesses of these events I shall be very pleased to see that they are called.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman see that Mr. Hugh Martin, the experienced correspondent of the "Daily News," who states that he has seen the bodies and the damage done, and any other persons—Englishmen or otherwise—not under police intimidation by his Department are called?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I repeat, if my hon. and gallant Friend can give me the names of any man or woman, actual eyewitnesses of this crime, I will see that they are cited before the proper tribunal.

Mr. DEVLIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he can make a statement with regard to the horrible events that took place at Templemore, County Tipperary, on Friday night; whether it is a fact that the town was shattered from end to end by a series of explosions, shops burned, a hundred buildings destroyed, and a third of the population compelled to fly from the town; and can he say what action he proposes to take to deal with this latest outrage?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It is not a fact that the town was "shattered from end to end by a series of explosions," that "hundreds of buildings were destroyed," or that "one-third of the population was compelled to fly from the town." The plain facts are that the local police,
assisted by the townspeople, succeeded in confining the flames to two houses, and the local police were thanked by the Temple-more District Council, which is a Sinn Fein body, for their efforts. I am making the fullest inquiry into the whole question, but I wish to say that the hon. Member must have received his statements in this question from a source on which I would advise advise him never in future to depend.

Mr. DEVLIN: I am profoundly grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his advice, but I shall just take my information from whatever source I like. May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that these statements have been made in English newspapers?

Captain STANLEY WILSON: Does that make them true?

Mr. DEVLIN: Will the right hon. Gentleman have full information at the time of the adjournment of the House as to what precisely has taken place in Templemore in order that the House may have the real facts before it when I raise this matter on the adjournment to-night, because I do not believe the information which the right hon. Gentleman has read.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have given the hon. Member all the information that T have to hand at the moment.

Mr. DEVLIN: Well, you will have some more to-night at 11 o'clock.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: As soon as I received this question, I wired to send the fullest possible information, so that I could give it to the House at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. DEVLIN: To whom did the right hon. Gentleman wire? From whom did the right hon. Gentleman get his information. Did he get it from the Imperial League?

Captain S. WILSON: Where did you get your information?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he has any information in reference to the burning of Irish creameries in Co. Kerry, narrated in the "Manchester Guardian" of 30th October; the alleged attacks on' John and Tom McElligott and on their sisters; the alleged attack on John Lovat, and the
cutting of the hair of Mary Lovat; the alleged cutting of the hair of Miss Brady; whether in all these cases the correspondent of the "Manchester Guardian" pledges his own personal word to having examined into the facts; whether in the case of Mr. Burke, killed by the military in the town of Athlone, the evidence of the inquest did not show that the only shooting was that by the military themselves, and whether Mr. Burke was not known to be a perfectly peaceful and law-abiding citizen who had never belonged to any political organisation except that of the Constitutional party?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: With regard to the statements made in the "Manchester Guardian" of 30th October, I received on Thursday last a Co-operative Deputation which made representations to me regarding the destruction of Creameries at Abbeydorney and Lixnaw, and I am having enquiries made into the destruction of these creameries and the allegations that the destruction was carried out by servants of the Crown. I have read the accounts given in the "Manchester Guardian" of attacks on the McElligots and their sisters, and on John Lovat and Mary Lovat and Miss Brady. I have not received any reports on these occurrences, but I may point out to the hon. Member that the attacks in question, as reported in the "Manchester Guardian," were carried out by men with blackened faces, and, it would appear, in civilian clothes. According to the newspaper report, these men were beaten and kicked on the suspicion that they were implicated in cutting off the hair of a girl who was friendly with the police. In the case of Mr. Burke, referred to in the last part of the question, I have already stated in reply to a question by the hon. Member on the 26th instant that Mr. Burke was an absolutely innocent man. He was unfortunately shot while the police were entering Athlone after one attack, and when they were in fear of another.

Lord R. CECIL: When my right hon. Friend speaks of inquiries, are these inquiries made in private or in public?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: Some inquiries are made in private and some in public. My own experience in Ireland is that the most effective inquiry is made in private.

Mr. DEVLIN: From whom does the right hon. Gentleman make these inquiries?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: From those officers and persons who are responsible to me for their conduct.

Mr. DEVLIN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to state that the only inquiries which he makes are inquiries from the superior officers of the men who are charged with these crimes? Do I understand that to be the answer?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The superior officers of the men who are charged with reprisals are the officers most interested in the discipline of the respective units to which these men belong, and there have been many cases in which soldiers and policemen have been court-martialled and some policemen have been dismissed for conduct that is not in keeping with the discipline of those two great forces of the Crown.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Were they dismissed for murder? Is dismissal the punishment for murder?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: There is no charge, with one exception—that of a policeman now under arrest—of which I know urged against a policeman or soldier for murder.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: You make it yourself in the case of Balbriggan.

Mr. CLYNES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give the House any information on the representations made to him by the Co-operative organisations?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I received a deputation on the question—a very interesting deputation—but I do not know what information I can give to the right hon. Gentleman. I have no doubt that a report of the deputation's visit and my remarks will appear in the Co-operative Press.

Mr. DEVLIN: What is the precise procedure of these courts of inquiry? What evidence is called before those courts?

Lord R. CECIL: What guarantee is there?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: It would require a very long answer fully to explain the procedure. The natural procedure in the
case of a police inquiry is that the facts alleged by the hon. Member or any hon. Member or anybody else are sent through the proper channels to the local officer, and he examines anyone whom he sees fit to examine. That is the ordinary case. There are cases where we send down one of our senior officers to hold an independent inquiry with liberty to call what evidence he likes before him.

Mr. DEVLIN: Might I ask the Prime Minister—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think any further questions ought to be put down.

Mr. DEVLIN: On a point of Order. As this is really a very vital and serious matter to Ireland, I would like to put one short question to the Prime Minister. I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of what he must regard as this most unsatisfactory method of procedure in matters touching the life and death not only of soldiers and policemen but civilians, he is prepared to appoint an English impartial judicial tribunal for the purpose of inquiring into the whole matter.

The PRIME MINISTER: We discussed this question of an inquiry at considerable length in this House some nights ago. My hon. Friend was not present, but the reasons, in the present condition of Ireland, against inquiries of the kind that he indicates, are quite obvious. In the first place, there is no such thing as independent evidence. You cannot get civilians who have actually seen murders perpetrated to come forward and give evidence. There have been several cases of murders in the presence of a whole street full of people who could have given evidence. They never come forward to give evidence. They dare not. It is really idle under those circumstances to talk about judicial inquiries. You must make such inquiries as you can by such means as are at the disposal of the Government. The Government are not responsible, for that condition of things. Until the whole sense of the community is in favour of punishing any crime or any murder, it is impossible to conduct inquiries under such circumstances as are indicated by my hon. Friend. The real remedy is a restoration of a sense of indignation against the perpetration of murder and crime.

SINN FEIN AND GERMANY.

Major M. WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will publish the documents found in the possession of the present Sinn Fein leaders in 1918, which show that they were prepared to join with Germany in an attack upon us?

The PRIME MINISTER: 45.
The matter is under consideration, and I hope to be in ii position to announce the decision shortly.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Has the attention of the right hon. Gentleman been drawn to Colonel Repington's statement that General Mahone—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Member should give notice of that question.

Major WOOD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be able to give a decision on this matter, and is he aware that many people are under the impression that the reason for not publishing these documents is that they do not exist?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is what I should expect.

DUBLIN CORPORATION (MANSION HOUSE COLLECTION).

Sir MAURICE DOCKRELL: 53.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that a notice of motion has been given by a member of the Dublin Corporation to the effect that, subject to the approval of the law agent, the pictures and other paraphernalia of or from British kings and their representatives at present in the Mansion House or city hall be disposed of by public auction or by private treaty, and that the moneys so accruing be placed to the credit of the different employing committees in order to retain employés to do the necessary work of the council; and will he, in the event of it being decided to be within the legal competence of the Dublin Corporation to give effect to this motion and of it deciding so to do, acquire on behalf of the Irish National Gallery this valuable and historic collection, and thus prevent its dispersal among private owners?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: My attention has been drawn to a newspaper report of the proposal to which my hon. Friend
refers. I am not prepared without further consideration to take such action as he suggests.

Sir M. DOCKRELL: Will the right hon. Baronet keep a watching brief in reference to this matter?

HUNGER STRIKERS.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister if he will state how many Irish prisoners are on hunger-strike in Cork Prison; how many have already died; whether he is aware that in the case of the late Michael Fitzgerald witnesses were produced to prove his innocence, but their evidence was not taken; that in the, case of Murphy, who has since died, and in the case of Hennessy, who was dying on the 29th October, evidence was produced by Mr. Philip Harold-Barry, late Sheriff of Cork, proving the innocence of both these men; and whether he will cause a strict inquiry to be held into the cases of these Cork prisoners, especially with regard to the untried men?
Sir H. Greenwood supplied the following answer to Question (132), which, under the direction of Mr. Speaker, was treated as a non-oral question:
Nine prisoners are on hunger strike in Cork Prison, and two prisoners have recently died there as a result of hunger-strike. I am aware that Mr. Barry offered to produce evidence on behalf of Fitzgerald, charged with murder, against whom a grand jury had previously found a true bill. The officer, before whom he offered to produce witnesses, stated, as was the case, that he had no authority to hear them. I am also aware that Mr. Barry produced evidence on behalf of Murphy and Hennessy, but it is not the case that this evidence proved the innocence of both these men. I do not propose to order any other inquiry into these cases than that provided by the law, namely, their trial by court-martial, an inquiry which they themselves by their abstention from food have up to the present rendered impossible.

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I have received a letter from the hon. and gallant Member setting out this question as a private notice question. The same question is down on the Order Paper to-day as a
starred question, No. 132. Therefore, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, on a point which is of interest to hon. Members, whether I should answer—I am prepared to answer if you so rule—a private notice question which is also on the Order Paper?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I did not intend to raise this as a private notice question. On Friday I gave notice of my intention to ask this question of the Prime Minister, and the question appeared on the Order Paper as addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. I put it to you, Sir, that in view of the urgency of the case I was entitled to ask the Prime Minister the question, having regard to the high policy concerned, and that it was not in order for my question to be altered without consulting or asking me.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member handed me his question immediately before the House met, but he gave me no intimation that it was already upon the Paper. Although I have read the questions to-day, I confess that I did not remember the exact terms of question 132. Under the circumstances, I do not think it can now be asked as an urgent question. With regard to the alteration of the name of the Minister to whom the question is addressed, this matter is evidently one for the Irish Office. They alone have the information. Therefore, the question should be addressed to them. The hon. and gallant Member will see that by patting the question to the Prime Minister he might possibly, if it were admitted, be depriving other Members who desire to ask the Prime Minister questions on matters which are really in the Prime Minister's Department of the opportunity of getting answers.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I put it to you that this is a matter of high policy concerning the Prime Minister and a matter of great urgency in view of the fact that one of these men is either dead or on the point of dying. In view of that fact, I put it very respectfully that this is a proper question to put to the Prime Minister. Any question on any subject addressed to the Prime Minister might under your ruling be out of order as every Department of the State has its head, apart from the Prime Minister. That is the reason why the question is put to the Prime Minister.

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see anything in what the hon. and gallant Member has said to lead me to alter my views.

WEEK-END CRIMES.

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: (by Private Notice) asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland if he can state the number of police who have been murdered or attacked in Ireland during the week-end?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I regret to say that it is a long list, and I trust that the House will bear with me:

1. Patrol of sergeant and three constables ambushed at Killybegs, County Donegal, last night. One constable wounded.
2. District-Inspector Killegher shot dead in Kiernan's Hotel, Granard, County Longford, at 9 p.m. last night.
3. Sergeant Henry Cronin, of Tullamore, King's County, fired at and wounded, 7.30 p.m. last night. DiedS 45 a.m. this morning.
4. Police patrol fired upon at Dungannon, County Tyrone, at 10.45 p.m. last night. One constable wounded.
5. Constables Caseley and Evans, of Killorglin, County Kerry, shot dead 10 p.m. last night.
6. 9.30 p.m. last night: attempt to assassinate military officer at Killenaule, County Tipperary. Military sergeant wounded.
7. Police patrol fired on last night Ballyduff, County Tipperary. One man killed, one wounded.
8. Police patrol, Abbeydorney, County Kerry, attacked last night. Constable Madden shot dead. Another seriously wounded.
9. Police patrol in Tralee fired upon. One constable wounded.
10. Police patrol in Listowel, County Kerry, fired upon. No casualties.
11. Two constables wounded at Causeway, County Kerry, last night.
12. Naval wireless operator seriously wounded in Tralee last night.
13. Constable Doyle, of Clonark, seriously wounded at Kielty, 5 p.m. last night.
14. Two constables fired at, Thomastown, County Kilkenny, at 9.40 p.m. last night. No casualties.
15. At Castledaly, County Galway, police ambushed. One constable killed, two wounded.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Does not that point to the hopeless breakdown of your policy? Are you going to succeed?

Lieut.-Colonel ALLEN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if any arrests have been made in connection with these barbarous atrocities?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: I cannot give the number—these wires have just come to hand. They are very brief—but some arrests, I know, have been made.

Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Do you still claim—[Interruption].

MRS. J. ANNAN BRYCE (ARREST).

Mr. HOGGE: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether Mrs. J. Annan Bryce was arrested at Holyhead on Friday by agents of the Government, thence deported to Dublin, and imprisoned in a Bridewell there; if so, by what authority, on whose instructions, and on what grounds was this action taken?

Sir H. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The lady was arrested by order of the Competent Military Authority under the powers conferred by No. 55 of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Regulations. She was suspected of having in her possession documents of a seditious character. She did have documents, out they were not considered of a sufficiently serious nature to lay a definite charge.

Mr. HOGGE: I addressed this question to the Prime Minister, and I would ask this supplementary question: When had the Government and how had the Government power under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act to arrest a British subject in this country? Is it not a fact that the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act applies only to Ireland? This lady, the wife of an ex-Member of this House—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member should give notice of that supplementary question. It requires research.

Mr. HOGGE: On a point of Order. I did give notice of this question as early as half-past eleven to the Government. The reply is under the authority of the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act. Anybody in this House knows that that
Act was passed for Ireland. I am not asking for information about that. I am asking a question about this country. I want to know why in this country under an Act of Parliament applying only to Ireland a British subject can be arrested.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member will put his question in the ordinary way, he will get a reply.

Mr. HOGGE: I give notice that at the close of questions I shall ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on an urgent matter of definite public importance, namely, the arrests of British subjects in this country under an Irish Act.
At the end of Questions—

Mr. HOGGE: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House on a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the arrest of Mrs. Annan Bryce at Holyhead, her deportation to Dublin, and imprisonment without charge under an Act of Parliament that applies only to Ireland.
The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and, fewer than forty Members having accordingly risen, the House proceeded to the Orders of the Day.

Mr. HOGGE: I give notice that I will raise this matter on the Adjournment. [HON. MEMBERS: "You cannot!"] Then I shall beg to divide.

FRANCO-BELGIAN UNDER- STANDING.

Mr. HOGGE: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether the British representative on the Council of the League of Nations will be instructed to bring before the Council the necessity for the immediate registration with the League of the Franco-Belgian understanding?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any provisions in this understanding as to the opening of the Lower Scheldt?

Lord R. CECIL: Is it not a fact that the Belgian Prime Minister has stated that the Government intend to lay this agreement before the Belgian Chamber?

The PRIME MINISTER: My attention has not been drawn to that statement, but if it is so I shall be glad.

Mr. HOGGE: Is my right hon. Friend not aware of the anxiety that will be produced in the Council of the League of Nations if contracting parties like France and Belgium do not let the other constituents of that Assembly know what is passing between the Imperial Chancellories?

LICENSING BILL.

Mr. HOGGE: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state when he will introduce the Bill dealing with the liquor traffic, which he promised would be introduced before Christmas, 1919?

Mr. G. TERRELL: asked the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to make any statement of policy in regard to the future of the licensing trade; and, if not, whether he will agree to the suggestion which has been made to appoint a Select Committee of independent Members of this House to inquire into and report on the subject?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Herbert Fisher): I have been asked to answer these questions. We still hope to be able to introduce the Bill dealing with this subject during the present Session.

Mr. BRIANT: Is the Bill ready to be presented, has it been submitted to the Cabinet, and, if so, has it been approved?

Mr. FISHER: The Bill has already been drafted.

Mr. BRIANT: Has it been submitted to the Cabinet and approved?

Mr. FISHER: It has been considered by a Committee of the Cabinet and approved.

Captain TERRELL: Has the suggestion about appointing a Committee been dropped?

Mr. FISHER: The Prime Minister has appointed a small Committee to consider
one particular question, that is, the question of the closing of licensed promises on Sunday.

Mr. HOGGE: Can the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the time of the House, say whether, in addition to the introduction of the Bill this Session, the Government mean to pass it through all its stages this Session?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think that question should be put to the Leader of the House, who is responsible for the arrangements.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Will the personnel of this Committee be chosen in the ordinary way by the Government, or will the new practice of Members nominating themselves be adopted?

Mr. G. TERRELL: Are there any ladies on the Committee?

The PRIME MINISTER: The suggestion to appoint a Committee came from those who had taken a special interest in the matter, and the Committee was to advise the Government upon the best course to take upon one particular question. I thought it was a very practical suggestion, which avoided the trouble and delay of setting up a Select Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: In choosing the personnel of that Committee is the right hon. Gentleman following the ordinary practice of having all parties represented, and not acting simply on the suggestions of hon. Members at Question time that certain people should be selected for their particular views?

Sir J. D. REES: Who have been appointed on the Committee on Closing Hours?

The PRIME MINISTER: All sections of the House are represented. [HON. MEMBERS: "Names!"] I will see if I can give the names before the sitting is over.

Mr. W. THORNE: When the Central Control Board (Liquor Traffic) meets tomorrow, if they make an Order to have Sunday opening from 7 to 10 o'clock, will they be called upon to report that decision to the Cabinet before it is put into operation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have no doubt they will let us know before any action is taken The final decision is
with the Liquor Control Board, but the Cabinet will be confronted with the nature of the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

GENERAL WRANGEL.

Mr. MALONE: 33.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the Czarist leader, General Wrangel, and his chief of the staff were officially received on board H.M.S. "Ramillies" on 19th August; what was the object of this official recognition; and, in view of the Government's repeated denials that British support is extended to General Wrangel, will he issue, orders that local representatives of either the War Office or Admiralty are to carry out the policy declared in the House of Commons?

Sir A. SHIRLEY BENN: Before this question is answered, may I ask if any hon. Member of this House has a right to state in a question that General Wrangel is a "Czarist leader"?

Mr. SPEAKER: If my attention had been previously called to the words, I should probably have struck them out. They must be taken only as the opinion of the hon. Member (Mr. Malone).

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: Is it not the rule that Members putting down questions make themselves responsible for allegations such as this?

Mr. MALONE: I am responsible.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask if the adjective "Czarist" is supposed in this House to be derogatory?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know that it is derogatory: it is said to be untrue.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Colonel Sir James Craig): General Wrangel and his Chief of Staff were not officially received on board H.M.S. "Ramillies" on the 19th August, but General Wrangel was entertained as a private guest by the officer commanding, who had know him when he was Naval Attaché at Petrograd before the War.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Were the members of the Military Commission lately with General Wrangel present at this banquet?

Sir J. CRAIG: I do not know that it could be described as a banquet. I think it was a private dinner given by the commanding officer of the ship. I have no further information.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Arising out of my question last week, has the right hon. Gentleman made inquiry whether the members of the Military Commission were present at this meal?

Sir J. CRAIG: The question last week was on all-fours with this question, which does hot ask for further information, and therefore I have obtained none.

Mr. DEVLIN: Will General Wrangel be placed in charge of the Special Constabulary now being called into existence in Ulster?

TRADE RELATIONS.

Mr. MYERS: 50.
asked the Prime Minister if he will state categorically the conditions upon which the Government is prepared to make peace with Soviet Russia and remove all obsta[...] in the way of the resumption of trade relations with that country?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 26th October to a similar question by the hon. Member for Islington East (Mr. Raper).

UNEMPLOYMENT.

Mr. GLANVILLE: 34.
asked the Prime Minister what measures the Government will bring forward for dealing with unemployment among skilled craftsmen, clerks, and ex-officers?

Major ENTWISTLE: 64.
asked the Lord Privy Seal what measures the Government will bring forward to deal with unemployment among those who are incapable of heavy and laborious work?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Dr. Macnamara): I have been asked to reply to these questions. My hon. Friends will be aware that the question of unemployment is under consideration by a committee of the Cabinet. Various suggestions have been received and have been submitted to the Cabinet Committee. With regard to ex-officers, special efforts are being made by the Appointments Department to deal with this question. Ex-
officers are still being placed in training. The total number of ex-officers and men of similar qualifications placed by the Appointments Department is 43,317. Under the Maintenance and Training Grants Scheme, upwards of 55,000 grants have been made to ex-officers and men of similar qualifications. This figure includes the grants made by all Departments concerned in administering the scheme.

Viscount CURZON: As many of these ex-officers have no other employment offered to them than enlisting in the Black and Tans, cannot anything be done for them?

Mr. DEVLIN: Oh, something ought to be done for them.

Mr. G. TERRELL: Has the Committee which is investigating this matter had under consideration the desirability of checking imports?

Mr. W. THORNE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government are going to introduce a Bill to shorten and simplify the acquisition of land for the new roads that are to be made under the scheme of providing work for the unemployed; if he is aware that it is of vital importance that enough land should be taken for such new roads, so that the new building frontage may be public property; and if he can state whether the Government have considered the advisability of promoting national schemes of land reclamation and afforestation on public land as productive work to relieve the unemployed difficulty at the present time?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is proposed to introduce a Bill which will shorten and simplify the procedure at present available for the acquisition of land for the construction of new roads for providing work for the unemployed. The Bill is being drafted, and the lines at present are to adopt the provisions now applicable to the acquisition of land for housing. Proposals of the kind suggested are among those being considered by the Cabinet Committee on Unemployment. In regard to afforestation, the Forestry Commission is planting between 5,000 and 6,000 acres during the coming winter.

Mr. THORNE: Has not the right hon. Gentleman omitted to answer one point in my question, namely, whether the
Government have considered the advisability of promoting national schemes of land reclamation?

Lieut.-Colonel CROFT: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the continuous unrest in industry and resultant unemployment, he is prepared to give a day for full consideration of a scheme to deal with this subject?

The PRIME MINISTER: This question was fully discussed on the 21st October, and the Government are not prepared to give another day for its discussion.

LITHUANIA.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 38.
asked the Prime Minister what is the present situation in Lithuania; and whether His Majesty's Government are taking any steps to preserve the independence of that small nationality?

The PRIME MINISTER: According to our most recent information, the troops under General Zeligovski have not advanced beyond the vicinity of Vilna and the Lithuanian Government is located in Kovno. As regards the second part of the question, the League of Nations is now dealing with the Polish-Lithuanian dispute.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask why equally vigorous action has not been taken in this matter to that which was taken towards the Russian Government in its advance on Warsaw?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that very effective action has been taken.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: It does not appear to have been very effective.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Council of the League of Nations have decided that they can take no further part in nor offer any opinion on the questions at issue between the Polish Government, the Lithuanian Government, and the Provisional Military Government of General Zeligovski at Vilna; whether there is any British representative in Vilna; and, if so, what is the situation in that city?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the
negative. I understand that the matter has been before the Council of the League at their recent meeting, but until the report of the Council is received I cannot make any statement on the subject. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative. As regards the third part, I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer given to the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) to-day.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Is it the intention to send British representatives to Lithuania, in order that the British Government may be informed of what is going on there?

Mr. LAMBERT: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when the decision of the Council of the League of Nations on this question between Poland and Lithuania will be made?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope it will be made soon. The question came before the League last week, and certain steps were directed, but how long it will take to carry them out I do not know; it depends upon whether there is a plebiscite or not. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Ormsby-Gore), I think we have a representative in Lithuania.

Lord R. CECIL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman once again whether he will not take some steps to regularise the presentment of the decisions of the Council of the League to this House, since, at present, this House has really no official information as to what is done and what is not done?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think there is a good deal to be said for that. My right hon. Friend will be back either today or to-morrow, and I will bring the suggestion to his notice.

BATTLE OF JUTLAND (HISTORY).

Viscount CURZON: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can give an assurance that the official account of the battle of Jutland will be included in the Naval History of the War as it stands without any alteration, amendments, or omissions, other than the addition of any facts which may transpire from official or unofficial German sources; can he state what
particular interest the publishers have as to how or when the Naval History of the War is published; and whether the costs of publication are a charge upon any Vote, and, if so, which?

The PRIME MINISTER: It may be assumed that Sir Julian Corbett will wish to make the fullest possible use of the material compiled by the Admiralty, but he has not yet had an opportunity of examining it thoroughly, and I am averse from giving any assurance that might interfere with his independence as an historian. The publishers' interest is that the history is published at their expense. The cost of publishing is not, therefore, a charge on any Vote, but the preparation of the history is a charge on the Treasury Vote for the Committee of Imperial Defence, to whom Sir Julian Corbett is responsible as author.

Viscount CURZON: May I ask whether that answer really means that Sir Julian Corbett has the power, if he wishes, to censor this account, or whether it will be given to the nation and to the world as it stands?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is not a question of censorship. Sir Julian Corbett is in the position of a historian of these events, and he has a responsibility, as such, to examine the evidence. There is nothing beyond that.

Mr. LAMBERT: May I ask why it is that the Admiralty have gone back on their decision to publish the official report of this Battle of Jutland, which is a most important thing to have, and whether we cannot have now an official statement or report regarding this battle, which is so important, and which the British public have a right to demand?

The PRIME MINISTER: I know that this is a highly controversial topic, and therefore I must be very careful what I say, but I am not sure that it is desirable that there should be a separate account of this particular battle. Sir Julian Corbett, I understand, is writing the official account of the War from the Admiralty point of view, and, naturally, he will be writing the official account of the Battle of Jutland as well.

Mr. LAMBERT: Is Sir Julian Corbett, therefore, to be the referee in this
matter? Is he deciding what shall be put into the history as regards the battle of Jutland? Cannot we have from the Admiralty its official and impartial account of this battle?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is very difficult to get an official and impartial account, having regard to the conditions, but, as far as the Government are concerned, they certainly have no objection, if the House desires it, to publish all the reports and despatches that there may be on that subject, and leave it to the public to judge. They certainly have no official view on the subject.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: In view of that statement, would it not be better that these documents should be published, and that any official account should be left to individuals, as distinguished from the Government?

Mr. MILLS: Is it not a fact that there is a German version of the battle of Jutland already in existence?

The PRIME MINISTER: Undoubtedly they also have their views, and I believe they have already published them; but I will consider the suggestion.

Sir J. BUTCHER: May I ask whether the publishers of this book have any right to object to the official publication by the Admiralty of their account?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir; they certainly have absolutely no right, as far as the Government is concerned. If the House of Commons wishes for publication of documents of that kind, no publishers' rights would stand in the way.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (FINANCE).

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 42.
asked the Prime Minister what proportion of the sum required for the machinery of the League of Nations is being paid for by this country?

The PRIME MINISTER: Apportionment for first and second Budgets (already paid) was made, in accordance wth Article 6 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, in accordance with the apportionment of the expenses of the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union, under which Great Britain
ranks as a first-class country of 25 units. The third (current) Budget of the League has, it is understood, been recently discussed by the Council of the League, and the method of apportioning expenses in the future is to be discussed by the Assembly.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: May I ask whether each nation represented pays some portion of these expenses, however small?

Sir F. BANBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how much this country has paid for the League of Nations?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should require notice of that question

MINERAL ROYALTIES (NATION- ALISATION).

Major BARNES: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether the fulfilment of the pledge to nationalise mineral royalties is indefinitely postponed?

Mr. KILEY: 44.
asked the Prime Minister when the Bill providing for the nationalisation of mineral royalties will be introduced?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government intended to introduce this Bill during the present Session, but owing to the trouble in the coal industry the Department has been prevented from dealing with it. I hope, however, that it may be possible to introduce the Bill early next Session.

Oral Answers to Questions — MESOPOTAMIA.

SIR PERCY COX (REPORT).

Mr. RAPER: 48.
asked the Prime Minister whether any report has yet been received by His Majesty's Government from Sir Percy Cox; and, if not, when it is anticipated a report will arrive?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative; the second part, therefore, does not arise.

Mr. RAPER: In view of the importance of the question, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can give us some idea of what the report says?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think it would be premature to do so just yet,
because we have not had a full report from Sir Percy Cox on the situation. The military situation has only just been cleared up. Sir Percy Cox has seen a good many of the sheikhs, but has not seen them all yet, and I do not think it would be desirable to give a report which is not final.

Mr. RAPER: May I ask whether Sir Percy Cox suggested in his report that the time has arrived when we should, without any further delay, agree to the formation of an independent Arab Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: There is no question of his reporting that. Those were the instructions with which he went out, namely, to form an Arab Government.

Lord R. CECIL: Could not this report be laid on the Table as soon as possible?

The PRIME MINISTER: indicated assent.

CABINET OFFICES (SALARIES).

Mr. WALLACE: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet come to a decision regarding the raising of the status of the Secretary for Scotland to that of Secretary of State for Scotland?

The PRIME MINISTER: The Government are of the opinion that the change suggested in this question ought to be made, but, as the House knows, they are also of the opinion that the salaries attached to some of the other Cabinet offices are inadequate. We propose, therefore, to appoint immediately a Select Committee of this House to examine into the question.

Mr. WALLACE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the case of the Secretary for Scotland comes under a special category, having regard to the fact that from his own office he has to discharge the functions of at least four Ministers, and the salary attached to his office is less than half that of an English Secretary of State?

The PRIME MINISTER: I recognise fully the case put by my hon. Friend. There is a special case as far as Scotland is concerned.

Mr. HOGGE: Do I understand that the Select Committee is to investigate the salaries of all Ministers?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, only certain offices which are low paid, but which are offices of very great responsibility.

Mr. HOGGE: When will the Committee be set up?

The PRIME MINISTER: Immediately.

Mr. WALLACE: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider there is a special case for a special Bill for the Secretary for Scotland?

Sir F. BANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to wait until the finances of the country are in a sounder position before increasing salaries?

Sir H. CRAIK: Is it not the case that when the Bill for increasing the status and salaries of the Secretary for Scotland was before the House it was opposed by the hon. Member who puts the question?

Mr. WALLACE: Yes, on the ground that other Ministers were included.

ARMISTICE DAY (CEREMONIES).

Major HAMILTON: 56.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the great demand, by the widows and mothers of officers and men who were killed in the War, for seats in Westminster Abbey and for the unveiling of the Cenotaph, he will allot any accommodation which would usually be reserved for Members of both Houses of Parliament to such widows and mothers?

The PRIME MINISTER: The view of the Government was that Parliament, as the representative of the nation, should be officially present at this ceremony. If there be a general desire on the part of Members of these Houses to surrender, for the benefit of bereaved wives and mothers, such accommodation in the Abbey and near the Cenotaph as in the ordinary course might have been placed at the disposal of Members, His Majesty's Government will be glad to make arrangements accordingly.

Sir BURTON CHADWICK: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether the two minutes' silence is to be observed on
Armistice Day throughout Great Britain; if so, at what time of the day; and whether, in order to make the silence complete, he will cause an order to be issued that all motor vehicles shall stop their engines in order that sound as well as movement shall cease?

The PRIME MINISTER: I understand that the Cabinet Committee which is charged with the duty of supervising the arrangements for the proposed ceremonies on 11th November have recommended that there should be a two minutes' silence observed throughout the United Kingdom, and, if possible, in the Dominions and Indian Empire, at 11 a.m.; and that, as on the last anniversary of Armistice Day, there should be a complete suspension of normal business, work, and locomotion during the two minutes, so far as this may be found to be practicable.

Sir B. CHADWICK: In addition to the stoppage of movement, will the right hon. Gentleman issue an order or a request that a stoppage of sound should coincide with it and that motor engines shall be stopped as well as the movement of vehicles?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I think that is very desirable.

Mr. HOGGE: The right hon. Gentleman said he took it we agreed to a certain arrangement. While we are all agreeable to that, would he take into consideration this point, that those of us who represent individual constituencies might have a recommendation in our constituencies of the widow and the mother—[HON. MEMBERS: "NO."]

The PRIME MINISTER: I take it the House is prepared to surrender its privileges in this respect, and I gathered from the reception that that was the feeling. I think they ought to be surrendered altogether because there is really no time to go through that process. Therefore I will communicate with the Committee in charge what the feeling of the House is.

HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

The PRIME MINISTER: May I take it from that that the House would prefer that course?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the possibility of burying
the body of an unknown sailor side by side with the unknown soldier in Westminster Abbey on Armistice Day so that the same honour may be given to both Services?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not received this notice.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: I gave you notice on Saturday.

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry, but I think I shall be able to answer it. That is a question which was very carefully considered by the Cabinet, and we considered it, I need hardly say, after consulting the distinguished sailors who advise the Admiralty, and also the distinguished soldiers who advise the Air Board, because there was another branch of the Services also concerned, and the conclusion come to by all the Services was that under the circumstances the course which has been adopted is the right one. The inscription on the coffin is not "a soldier." He is described as an unknown warrior. He therefore will represent all the Services, and I think, after consulting all those who are concerned, that was the general view. It gave us a good deal of anxiety, but I think it is the only conclusion we could come to.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the published statement of the troops who are to line the streets prominence is given to Guards and other military regiments, but no names of naval men are mentioned?

The PRIME MINISTER: The arrangements were entered into with the Admiralty, and whatever arrangements were made are arrangements they have assented to. The pall bearers include distinguished admirals.

TRAWLERS, PORTSMOUTH.

Major Sir BERTRAM FALLE: (by Private Notice) asked the First Lord of the Admiralty if it is a fact that five trawlers are being taken from Portsmouth and sent to a private firm at Southampton for reconditioning, and if the cost is fixed at £8,000 per trawler, and if such a sum was arrived at by open tender or auction or by guesswork; and if he is aware that these trawlers could have been reconditioned at Portsmouth for £4,000 a piece;
if he is aware that there are thousands of unemployed at Portsmouth, and if he can give any reason for the taking away from Portsmouth ship repair yards of these vessels, and if he will investigate the matter and give some assurance that no trawler, mine sweeper or other craft shall be sent out of Portsmouth to other ports until all Portsmouth ship repair yards are full up, and if he will enquire how this contract was arrived at and let the House know the result and the reason for the waste of £20,000 of the taxpayers' money, and if he will even now put the reconditioning of these vessels up to auction?

Mr. BOTTOMLEY: What is the urgency of this question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I understand the urgency to be due to the fact that these trawlers are to be removed to-day or possibly to-morrow, and if the decision of the Admiralty could be reversed they would not be moved.

Sir J. CRAIG: There is no foundation whatever for the rumour that five trawlers are being taken from Portsmouth and sent to a private firm at Southampton. The conditions respecting unemployment at Portsmouth, which affect all the Royal Dockyards, are well known, and everything possible is being done to meet the situation. Very few vessels remain to be allocated for this service, and the relative claims of the various firms and dockyards will be, as in the past, fully considered in ordering any work required.

CIVIL SERVICE (ADMISSION OF WOMEN).

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: (by Private, Notice) asked the Lord Privy Seal whether the Regulations to be made by the Civil Service Commission regarding the admission of women to the Civil Service will be paid before the House, and, if so, will there be an opportunity for discussing them then, instead of the time promised for discussion of the Order in Council?

Mr. BONAR LAW (Leader of the House): Yes, Sir. The answer to both parts of my hon. Friend's question is in the affirmative.

Sir S. HOARE: Am I to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's answer
that the House will have not only an opportunity of discussing these Regulations but, if it thinks fit, of amending them?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that follows. If the House is given time to discuss the Regulations and express an opinion on them the Government would certainly not be disinclined to bow to that.

Mr. RAWLINSON: If the Order is passed in its present form will not the House lose control of the Regulations?

Mr. BONAR LAW: I understood that the answer which I have just given was acceptable to those who made the request for time, and it is accepted on this ground that the Government undertake always to lay Regulations before the House. The Regulations themselves can be discussed and it would be much better to deal with the matter in that way.

Orders of the Day — SHOPS (EARLY CLOSING) (No. 2) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Savings.)

"Nothing in this Act shall affect the provisions of Section seven of The Shops Act, 1912."—[Mr. Kiley.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. KILEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
Section 7 of the Shops Act, 1912, provides that where it appears expedient to modify the provisions for early closing in any locality the Secretary of State may appoint a person to hold an inquiry, and, after the inquiry is held, determine what time is suitable for closing to take place either in any section of shops or in all the shops in that locality, and that then a closing order can be made. I submit that this alternative procedure would be far more advantageous to the community than the proposals contained in the Bill which we are now considering.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the proposal which is now put forward be an alternative, the hon. Member ought to have objected on the Second Reading of the Bill. He cannot bring this up now.

Mr. KILEY: All that is asked is that where there is any advantage in a particular section in a special locality availing themselves of this procedure there should be power to do so, and what I am asking is that power should be given to the Home Secretary to make special provisions as provided in the Act of 1912 for special trades in special localities.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member merely proposes that there should be power to make certain exceptions in certain districts, his proposal would be admissible, but if what he proposes is a complete alternative to the Bill then his proposal would be out of order.

Mr. KILEY: Then I will withdraw that word, and I will emphasise the point that the object which I have in view is to permit an exception to be made for the special purpose of any particular trade or
any special locality. For instance, in seaside places, for nine months of the year the procedure of the Bill could be carried out without any difficulty; but during the season at the seaside it would be impossible for people who arrive at a certain time of night to obtain what they require, whereas if the local authority had the power in special circumstances of emergency to make provision for a certain period it would be much more suitable to the needs of the district. This would apply also in many parts of the country. For instance, in agricultural districts, during the fruit gathering period, when people are in the fields during the day and return late at night, there should be some special provision made for such special occasions. In districts inhabited by working people who are employed, say, at the docks of London, and where these people who are casual labourers obtain payment after their work is finished after a certain hour, they should have facilities for obtaining what they want. I submit that the facilities under the Shops Act, 1912, are much more suitable than the rigid proposals which the Home Secretary is now asking us to adopt. I submit that this Clause can be inserted in the Bill without interfering with such districts as those in the West End of London, to which the Home Secretary particularly wishes it to apply, whereas in the district adjoining St. Martin's Lane and Charing Cross, where there are many places of amusement, it probably would be preferable to have some other hour.

Motion not seconded.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendments of the right hon. Baronet the Member for London (Sir F. Banbury) are out of Order.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — WOMEN AND YOUNG PERSONS (EMPLOYMENT IN LEAD PRO- CESSES) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Shortt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very short Bill, which is intended to carry out the obligations under which this country rests to the International Labour Organisation of the League of Nations, which met at Washington last November and made certain recommendations. Among the recommendations are those which appear in the Schedule to this Bill and which have to be submitted to Parliament for ratification and inclusion in the legislation of the country. They deal with lead processes. They do not set up a maximum standard. What they recommend is the minimum standard to which every country ought at least to attain. This does not in the least prevent any country, including ourselves, from either continuing to be better than the recommendations, or, if not better now, becoming better than the recommendations. So far as this country is concerned it will make very little difference, because where we differ from the recommendations we are better and we shall remain better; but it is essential that we shall as soon as possible carry out the obligation under which we rest to the labour organisations of the League of Nations to have all these matters laid before Parliament and passed into law. This Bill deals with lead processes and certain limitations which are necessary in those processes which are dangerous, and there are certain provisions for health, etc., which are essential in all lead processes. We have carried out the full recommendations. I do not know of any objection to the Bill. It is entirely non-controversial, and I hope that the House will not only give it a Second Reading, but, as we have plenty of time this after noon, will allow us to take it through all its stages.

Mr. HOGGE: Like every other Member presumably of the House, we all welcome a Bill which seeks to standardise the minimum of industrial conditions all over the world. Nobody on this side of the House will complain for a moment about the introduction of this Bill, but I would like to ascertain exactly what we are asked to do. I gather from what the Home Secretary has said and the preamble to the Bill that this is the first recommendation with which we are dealing of the International Labour organisation of the League of Nations, which met in Washington some months ago.

Mr. SHORTT: One of the first.

Mr. HOGGE: I take it from what the Home Secretary has said that passing this Bill is a work of supererogation, because we have ourselves better legislation with regard to this particular industry than is incorporated in this Bill.

Mr. SHORTT: Nearly so.

Mr. HOGGE: If it is not so, the only advantage in passing the Bill would be to secure conditions more favourable to the industry than those which we have at present. In what respects is it better than any legislation which we have dealing with this particular subject? After all, that is the only point about which we want to concern ourselves. If the bulk of the conditions are less favourable than those we already have, what are the conditions which are not so favourable and are being dealt with in this Bill? What is going to be done with the body of this law when it has passed the House of Commons? I take it that this is part of an international scheme, of an attempt to reap the fruits of the League of Nations and to have a volume of industrial law applicable, as far as possible, to every nation inside the League. These Bills are going through as purely British Acts. I believe that must be necessary for the processes of this House, but what attempt is being made to keep this separate and to see that all the work of the nations inside the League adopt minimum conditions for industry?

Major HILLS: I welcome this Bill very heartily as one who has fought for some time to obviate the evil effects of lead poisoning, and I congratulate the Home Secretary on its introduction. With regard to the speech of the last hon. Member, I think I am right in saying that the position is this: The Bill deals with two things. Clause 1 deals with the use of lead in certain processes only, and is, I think, an improvement upon our legislation. Clause 2 deals with lead in all processes, including lead in pottery work, and is in effect the same system as we have had in operation for many years in this country. I think the hon. Member is under a misapprehension. All the Governments that are represented at the conference of labour organisations under the League of Nations are, I believe, pledged to bring in legislation which will carry out the decisions of that body. This Bill represents one of the decisions reached at Washington. The decision is
not carried out by means of identical Acts all over the world, but each Government in its own way is compelled to bring in legislation, and it is for the parliament of each country to pass that legislation or reject it.

Mr. HOGGE: Does the hon. and gallant Member mean by that that a similar standard is to be adopted in each country, or that the standards in the different countries can be dissimilar?

Major HILLS: All Governments are pledged to introduce at least the minimum of which the labour conference approves. At the same time they are expressly excused from reducing their own minimum to meet a general minimum. Progressive countries which possess a more advanced code are not obliged to bring down that code to the general average. When legislation is introduced I take it that Parliament is free to amend it by way of improving it, or to reject it. That is the only way in which you can pass satisfactory legislation. With regard to Clause 2, I believe that all these Regulations have been in force for many years in our pottery works, and certainly the effect of the Regulations in diminishing the evil of lead poisoning has been great. That has been the case especially as it affects women. The effect on women is far worse than on men.

Sir F. BANBURY: Why?

Major HILLS: Because it brings on miscarriages. I am very glad that we are giving a lead in passing this legislation. I hope that we shall soon see the other Bills in regard to which agreement was reached at Washington.

Mr. WIGNALL: I have carefully considered the Bill and, as far as my memory will permit, I have recalled the details of other legislation dealing with the processes in the working of lead. I heartily welcome the Bill because I think it marks an advance on the conditions that prevail now. Especially I welcome the provision in the Schedule that women or girls under eighteen years of age ought not to be employed in any place or factory where lead is in use. I have had some experience of the dreadful ravages of this disease. The many precautions adopted under the Acts that have been passed for preventing lead poisoning have to a considerable degree reduced the terrible effects, but there are
still evils existing. Any person knowing anything of the evil consequences of lead working in any department, especially in the furnaces for the smelting or manufacture on lead, must welcome any legislation of this character. I know there always will be certain neglect on the part of the workpeople themselves. We have provisions for the erection of baths and various cleansing places, but they are very often neglected by the people most concerned. I would emphasise the importance of enforcing the application of the remedy both on the employer and the workpeople. Unless some power is given to compel the employers to provide and the workers to use the remedy provided, I am sure the Bill will not be of real service. Of course the war period has been an exceptional time. Many rules have been loosely applied and the number of factory inspectors has been reduced almost to vanishing point, so that there has not been effective control as before. But those lapsed rules ought not to be permitted to continue in abeyance under peace conditions. The Labour party welcomes the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: I do not know enough of the process of work at furnaces where lead is used to say whether or not it is advisable to employ women. I understand from my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Hills) that there are very good reasons why women should not be employed in this work. I do not see why boys of seventeen-and-a-half years should not be employed. I should have thought it was just as bad to employ a boy of nineteen years as to employ a boy of seventeen-and-a-half years, but I do not pose as an authority on the point. It seems to me to be a very dangerous thing, and one which might possibly tend to the detriment of trade and commerce in this country, if legislation is to be introduced which has been decided upon by an international labour organisation. Personally, I do not know what the international labour organisation of the League of Nations is. I have no faith in the League of Nations; I believe it is a body which spends money and does nothing else. But I think it is a very serious thing to have legislation influenced by a labour organisation settled in Geneva, that organisation being composed of various representatives of all the nations of the world. I gather that we have only four representing us, two of them Government
officials, one a representative of the employers, and one a representative of the workmen. If with a small minority representation like that we have to do whatever foreign nations tell us to do about trade and commerce, I fear it would be very much to the detriment of our trade. Trade should not be hampered. It is in a very parlous state at present. Many of these philanthropic resolutions might be resolutions passed by labour organisations which hitherto have not shown themselves anxious to increase production, which is the only thing to save this country. I should be very much obliged if the Home Secretary would tell us whether we are to have many more of these Bills, and whether our trade and commerce is to be directed by a hole-and-corner committee consisting of a few people, gathered from God knows where, and sitting in a foreign town? It is quite a new thing, and if this is to be part of the new world, I hope we shall remain in the old.

Sir J. D. REES: I confess that I share the apprehensions of the last speaker. I cannot understand how an international body of two or three gathered together in Geneva, supermen, is in any way competent to lay down regulations applicable to countries differing in every conceivable respect. I have myself seen the evils resulting from the ignorant application of principles applied in this country to mines, for instance, in India, and the damage and destruction caused to people who were making an honourable, honest, comfortable livelihood in that country by the application to them of rules and regulations which have no sort of relation to the conditions obtaining there. That is an evil of which I have had many manifestations. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think, no doubt with the best possible intentions, that a good principle is equally applicable everywhere. In this Bill that process is extended to unimaginable lengths. These few people at Geneva are to be able to impose on British industry any principles of which they may approve. As my right hon. Friend said, there are paltry little or, at any rate, small and unimportant nations who receive on these occasions equal representation with great nations like ourselves who are in the van of industrial progress.

Sir F. BANBURY: I understand there is not even a woman on this organisation.

Sir J. D. REES: That is inexcusable, and I am sure it must vex my right hon. Friend very much. What troubles me most is that we in this country, who have been accustomed to lead in industrial progress, are to pay any attention to the representatives of small nations who have had no experience and no knowledge. I do not know why our representatives are to bind themselves and are these two or three men to be superior to the collective wisdom of His Majesty's Government. It may be perfectly right, and I dare say it is, that women should not be employed on this work. I do not for a moment dispute the propriety of not so employing women; but surely that is a thing which our Government and this country could discover for themselves. I do resent very much the kind of dictation which results from international labour organisations. We want to cut the canker of internationalism out of all this. Internationalism means the negation of patriotism and the abnegation of everything of which we should be proud. Instead of extending internationalism I long myself to see it abolished completely off the face of the earth. For that reason I resent this, not because it is not good, but because we are asked by an international organisation. I have seen principles laid down which had no application whatever to different parts of the British Empire. Here at the centre of the Empire and in this House of Commons we are asked to legislate by this body to which we owe no allegiance. I am not sent here by my constituents to adopt any legislation at the dictation of the Geneva International Convention, or any representatives from this country who may sit upon it, and who may, for all I know, not have the authority or knowledge or weight which would justify them in forcing us into this legislation.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. HOARE: I only rise to say one thing, and I should not have done so if it had not been for the amazing speeches we have heard from the right hon. and hon. Baronets who have just addressed the House. Both of them are old Parliamentarians. I am, therefore, very much surprised to hear them abusing a thing for which, I believe, both of them actually voted only a few months ago. The hon. Baronet (Sir J. D.
Rees) looks as if he doubted the truth of that statement. I would remind him that this was part and parcel of the Peace Treaty, and if I remember aright, we had a Division on the Peace Treaty, and the hon. Baronet and the right hon. Baronet voted for its ratification. I do not think I need say anything further.

Sip F. BANBURY: May I point out that I had no choice. I could not amend it, and I had to vote for the whole of it or against it.

Lieut.-Colonel RAW: I welcome the introduction of this Bill. The conclusions which have been arrived at have been formed after very careful investigation by experts. It may be argued that Clause 2 makes some differentiation between males and females. The effect of lead on women is must more important than on men, and for that reason there ought to be some differentiation between males and females in this industrial employment. I am perfectly certain if the Clauses of this Bill are carefully carried out the whole object of the Home Secretary will be achieved, namely, to defend the industrial worker against the serious effects of lead. We know as medical men that lead not only has immediate effects, but that its effects last for a very great number of years afterwards, ending very often in incurable conditions. I congratulate the Home Secretary on the introduction of the Bill, and I hope in the interests of the workers themselves that it will be given a Second reading.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: I rise because of the speech of the hon. Baronet (Sir J. D. Rees) of which I heard the last few sentences. In that speech he attacked this Bill not on the merits but because it came as the result of a labour conference held at Washington, under the auspices of the League of Nations. It is speeches like that and the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) which are reported by the enemies of the League of Nations abroad. Those two speeches will be reported verbatim in certain newspapers in the United States of America, partly, of course, because of the great eloquence and the language used, but, more important still, because they attack the principle of the League of Nations and the principle of legalised internationalism which will be the final outcome
of the League of Nations, and which, though it may take a long time, will, I hope, come. I am glad that the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare) rose, and I think it is the duty of somebody on this side to rise also, and repudiate the sentiments expressed by the two hon. Baronets. I believe that those speeches represent about a twentieth part of this House and that if a vote were taken as to whether we should ratify the agreements reached by our representatives at Washington they would not bring half a dozen Members into the lobby against them.

Sir F. BANBURY: As far as I know every single person in this country, with one or two exceptions, thinks the League of Nations is nonsense.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I know that at the General Election in 1918, in answer to a specific question sent out by the League of Nations Union, a private body of rather important people, there were only about a score of candidates who did not unhesitatingly endorse the principle of the League of Nations, and every party in this House has paid lip service to it. Both the twin Leaders of the present Government, the leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Paisley (Mr. Asquith), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Peebles (Sir D. Maclean) have approved of its principle. I think it is the duty of hon. Members to repudiate in the most emphatic language the speeches we have had from the two hon. Baronets

Captain ELLIOT: I do not think anybody who heard the speeches from the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) and the hon. Baronet (Sir J. D. Rees) should allow them to pass unchallenged, especially when the great word "patriotism" is misused in this connection. We had the hon. Member for Nottingham (Sir J. D. Rees) saying that internationalism is the negation of patriotism, and using that to attack a Bill to prevent the employment of women on lead processes. It is all very well to crack jokes, but the use of lead and the absorption of lead into the human body, though not a severe thing for a man is for a woman, and is the cause of abortion and other complaints. When an agreement like this is reached after getting together the representatives of all the civilised countries and is brought back
to this House, instead of being received as an honest attempt to get forward with the work of making the health of the people of the country better, you have hon. Baronets cracking jokes about it as if it were something amusing. There is nothing amusing about it.

Sir J. D. REES: Please distinguish between your Baronets.

Captain ELLIOT: I apologise to either of the hon. Baronets whose remarks I may have considered humorous. I ask the pardon of the House if I have spoken with too much heat, but I speak as one who has had some acquaintance with this matter, and it is a tragic and a fearful business. However faulty the attempt may be to carry out the agreement, it should not be criticised on the ground that, instead of being the work of this country unaided, it is the work of this country in conjunction with others. I add my voice to those who hope that the Bill will get a Second Reading.

Mr. BETTERTON: I welcome this Bill from a rather different point of view, and quite apart from the motives of humanity, with which I entirely agree. In years past it has been urged that British trade was affected by giving a higher degree of protection to the worker than that which obtained in other countries. So far as I know, this is the first organised attempt to ensure that the same measure of protection should be given to the workers in whatever country they live, and therefore to put them on the same footing. Therefore, in addition to the humanitarian motive, which I completely support, I support the proposal also on the ground that I think it will be an advantage to British trade.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. SHORTT: I desire to answer certain questions which were put to me. With regard to Clause 1, which prohibits entirely the employment of women and young persons in certain of these processes, I may say that substantially our existing Regulations have prohibited the employment of women and children in those processes for some years past. There are some such processes in which women and children never, have been employed, and the passing of this Bill will render such Regulations unnecessary if any attempt were made to employ
them. With regard to Clause 2, there are a certain number of minor industries—I have got a list of them here: perambulators, leather buttons, and all sorts of things of that kind—where these provisions have not been in force, but substantially the passing of this Bill simply makes permanent what we have been doing.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Shortt.]

Orders of the Day — MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Order for Second Heading read.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. Morison): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill proceeds on principles approved by a Committee of Conveyancers appointed by one of my predecessors in office, and I wish to express my high appreciation of the services which that Committee gave in recommending this and some other legislation. The Bill was drafted by the Committee, and it has been revised by my friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland and myself. It proposes to amend the law regarding the property of married women in Scotland, and in order that the House may follow the Sections of this Bill I desire to give a very brief explanation of what our law is. By the Common Law of Scotland a married woman is incapable of legal obligation. Her property became by marriage the property of the husband. The rigour of the Common Law was modified to some extent by a series of Statutes, the most important of which were the Married Women's Property Act, 1877, and the Married Women's Property Act, 1881, but at present the wife is still subject to the husband's right of administration, under which her deeds and writings in disposing of her property and all transactions in regard to her separate estate require the consent of her husband, with a minor exception, introduced by the Married Women's Property Act, 1881. Still, the law is that the wife is incapable of legal obligation, and the husband must be called to any suit in which
she is sued, and in general his concurrence is required to any action raised at her instance. The present Bill makes very important changes on all these matters, and it is the aim of the Bill to place a married woman, as regards her own property, in exactly the same position as the husband is.
The Bill does not affect arrangements which are made under ante-nuptial marriage contracts, but under Clause 2 of the Bill the husband's right of administration is abolished, although the husband remains his wife's curator during her minority. By Clause 3 of the Bill a married woman may enter into contracts and sue and be sued as if she were unmarried in regard to her own estate. Clause 5 deals with a special and, I think, important question. Our law, differing from the law of England in this respect, is that gifts between husband and wife are revocable and may even be revoked in a testamentary writing by either the husband or the wife. In many ways it seems that this rule has operated unfairly. The most striking illustration I can give the House of its unfairness is to consider the case where a woman, with no separate estate of her own, has yet helped the husband very considerably in his business and has no certainty that she is to receive any benefit from it. She may have assisted him in making his fortune. He may have made her some reward for her assistance, and yet he might revoke it either under his will or, indeed, at any time. Accordingly, we propose to take the opportunity of making our law in Scotland the same as in England on this subject. There is a technical conveyancing advantage in having this rule, because unless gifts were irrevocable, it would still be unsafe to dispense with the husband's consent to any deed by which a married woman conveyed her property, unless it were absolutely clear from the title that the property had not been derived from the husband. The other provisions in the Bill are mainly formal. Protection is given to the creditors of a man who seeks to defeat creditor's rights by such gifts, and the fourth Clause in the Bill renders the wife liable, if she has a superfluity of her estate, to support an indigent husband. That is also a new provision in our law. In short, I may say that the Bill removes married
women from the disabilities presently affecting them in regard to their own estates and, indeed, places them in the same position as married men are with regard to theirs. I feel sure that a Bill of this character will receive support from all quarters in the House.

Mr. HOGGE: I do not think it is necessary for me to speak in support of the Bill, because my right hon. Friend knows from conversations with us how we welcome the Bill and hope to see it speedily pass into law.

Sir F. BANBURY: Might I ask why this Bill is confined to Scotland? It appears to alter the law very considerably, and, speaking from a man's point of view, in the right direction. It seems to me to be the first result of female suffrage. Under it a married woman will now have to keep her husband in the event of her husband being unable to maintain himself. I have not any particular objection to that, and I am very glad that the view of the women voters is that all the anomalies under which the man was suffering are to be done away with; but I want to know why a Scottish husband who might be unable to maintain himself should be supported by a Scottish wife, whereas an English husband who is unable to maintain himself cannot be supported by an English wife.

Mr. HOGGE: Marry a Scotswoman.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am already married, and I do not wish to commit bigamy. Clause 3 says that a married woman shall be capable of entering into contracts and incurring obligations as if she were not married, and there, again, I think it is not a bad Clause, and I should be inclined to think it would be well to extend it to England. I have always opposed woman's suffrage, and I have not changed my mind. I should still oppose it if I were able to do so, but I am glad, at any rate, that they recognise their obligations and that one of the first effects of woman's suffrage is that she is prepared to maintain her husband if he cannot maintain himself.

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I desire to associate myself with other Scottish Members who give this Bill a very cordial welcome, and I have only one question to put: on Clause 6 of the Bill. The Lord Advocate has pointed out that Clause 6 expressly
reserves antenuptial contracts, and apparently the rest of the Bill does not affect any agreement which may be entered into under them. The only doubt I have in my mind is this: Will not a Bill of this kind, which we all welcome, lead to certain efforts in connection with antenuptial contracts to get round its terms? Many antenuptial contracts, as far as I have been able to follow them, are made in circumstances which cannot be regarded as fair or perfectly balanced. If that danger is present at all, and if there is a chance of contracting out, so to speak, of the first four or five Clauses of this Bill, which we all endorse, is it necessary and possible to strengthen Clause 6 in such a way as to render a state of affairs like that impossible?

Dr. MURRAY: While, with my hon. Friends, I welcome this Bill, I should like a little more explanation about Clause 4. It seems to me to open out opportunities for male adventurers to look up the legacies given to women in Scotland, and, by a matrimonial alliance, ensure themselves of a decent income for the rest of their lives without working. I think the Clause will surely have to be modified. I have no doubt the Courts would probably take reasons of that sort into account, but the Clause seems to open up opportunities for a man who is not anxious to work getting married to a lady with plenty of means and being able to go about the world without having to work at all. Clause 4 might encourage parasitic action of that sort, and I should like, to hear how that can be guarded against.

Mr. MORISON: I have to thank hon. Members who have spoken for welcoming this Bill. With regard to the question of the obligation which the Bill is proposing to place upon married women who have a superfluity of estate to support indigent husbands, there is a difference between the law of England and the law of Scotland. Under the law of England a woman who has a superfluity of estate is bound to free the parish from the maintenance of her husband. In Scotland a married woman is under no such obligation. This was decided in the case of Fingies in 1890, and the law accordingly in the two countries differs on that subject. We propose here that the married woman's estate should be under exactly the same obligation to her indigent husband as the husband's is to an indigent wife.

Sir F. BANBURY: It goes further than merely indemnifying the guardians for keeping a husband in the workhouse.

Mr. MORISON: Yes, that is exactly the proposal. We wish to place the husband's estate and the wife's estate in exactly the same position, and it is generally thought that is fair. But, of course, this Clause can be further discussed in the Scottish Grand Committee, if necessary. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh raised a question with regard to ante-nuptial marriage contracts, and it is necessary that ante-nuptial marriage contracts should not be at all affected by the provisions of this Bill, because, with us, the marriage settlement is part of the consideration of the marriage, and I can scarcely accept the suggestion that marriage contracts are often unfair. As a rule, both the husband and the wife have skilled legal advice, and they are in the position therefore of contracting upon equal terms, and I fancy the general view would be that our marriage contract should remain as part of our law. I think there are very few instances in which marriage contracts turn out to be unfair as between the two contracting spouses. I quite agree you sometimes get instances where hardships may arise, but these are cases in which the difficulty is not the contract, but as to how the provisions of the marriage contract have worked out, looking at the contingencies which have happened. Therefore, we propose, as regards the law as to ante-nuptial contracts, that it should remain as it is. If there are other points I have not noted, perhaps hon. Members will take an opportunity of raising them at the Scottish Grand Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH EMPIRE EXHIBITION (GUARANTEE) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. KELLAWAY (Secretary, Department of Overseas Trade): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
Perhaps I may be allowed to quote from the White Paper, which most Members
have received, as giving what are the objects with which the Bill is introduced—
It is proposed to hold in London in 1923 an Exhibition representative of the industries and resources of the British Empire. The objects of the Exhibition are to foster Inter-Imperial interests, from both a commercial and a political standpoint, and to demonstrate the natural resources of the territories of the Empire, and the inventive and manufacturing energy of its peoples. The Exhibition will be privately organised, but is receiving official recognition and support. His Majesty the King has given it is patronage, and H.R.H. the Prince of Wales has consented to act as President of the General Committee.
Under the Bill, if the House gives its approval, the Government propose to guarantee a sum up to £100,000, subject to private guarantees, amounting to £500,000, being forthcoming. As a further condition of the guarantee, the Board of Trade are to approve the manager of the Exhibition, the executive committee and the general conditions under which the Exhibition shall be run, so that the Government will be in a position of securing that the Exhibition, which is intended to represent all parts of the Empire, is conducted with a proper regard for economy, and on lines which shall ensure success worthy of the great object which it has in view. The idea of the Exhibition originated, I think, with Lord Strathcona. The idea was also supported by the Dominions Royal Commission appointed in 1912, and that Commission stated in its report that they found a general feeling not only in the United Kingdom, but also in the Dominions, that Inter-Imperial Exhibitions were likely to have an increasing tendency to promote Imperial trade, and that such exhibitions should afford a valuable opportunity to British manufacturers for developing their trade in the growing markets of the Dominions. The advent of the great War prevented that great idea from being carried through, and for five years it was in abeyance.
At a Conference, held in 1919, at which were present representatives of this country and of all our great Dominions, it was decided that it was desirable that the proposal should be pushed ahead, not only with the objects which were originally behind the idea, but in order to provide a memorial of the great part played by the Empire during the War. The
Empire in the War proved both its unity and its resources, and it is desirable, now that we are faced with the almost equally difficult and complex problems of peace, that the Empire should once more demonstrate its unity and its resources in dealing with these problems. Looking at it more particularly from the point of the interest of the United Kingdom, it has to be remembered—I think it is too often forgotten—that the United Kingdom itself is not a self-supporting unit; that it can only live by a great overseas trade; and I do think it is a defect in the equipment of some of our more advanced political thinkers that they proceed on the assumption that we can solve our problems at home entirely without regard to the effect that the solution of those problems may have on our overseas trade, and anything that strikes at the prosperity of our overseas trade is bound to strike at the life of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it was the effect of the great overseas trade which led Germany to embark on her submarine campaign, and if that campaign had succeeded in interfering seriously with our overseas trade, all the victories won by our sailors and soldiers would have been in vain.
Here is a great opportunity behind this idea, which strikes me as being a great one, of demonstrating, not only to the world, but to every part of the Empire, the almost unlimited resources which Providence has placed within the ambit of the Empire. We had recently in London an Imperial Timber Exhibition, and I am sure those Members of the House who visited that Exhibition must have been startled at the fact that the British Empire in timber alone was practically self-supporting; but one part of the Empire was not aware of what another part of the Empire could provide, and there were many great purchasers of timber at home who were not aware that they could obtain within the British Empire all the timber required for the purposes of peace. This Exhibition, under private management, but with Government approval, is intended to convey both to the different parts of the Empire and to the people at home how great are our resources and how great are our possibilities. It is a form of Imperial preference which, I think, raises no controversy. I was glad that when the financial Resolution was going through the House it was supported in
a characteristically forcible speech by the right hon. Member for Platting (Mr. Clynes). The possibilities of Imperial trade within the Empire have not only not been sufficiently carried through, but they have not been sufficiently realised. It was a regrettable feature in the tendency of British trade during the years before the War that the percentage of the trade done with the Overseas Empire showed diminution. I will not now give the figures, but I am sure the House will take that statement from me that there was a steady diminution in the percentage of the total amount of our trade which was being done with other parts of the Empire. I am glad to say that, since the signing of the Armistice, there has been a steady improvement in this important respect, and that the percentage of trade being done with the Empire since the Armistice has rapidly increased. In 1913 our exports to the Empire Overseas amounted to £208,900,000, or 32.9 per cent. of the total bulk of our exports. In 1919 our exports were £215,300,000, and there is no comparison possible between those two figures, because of the change in the value of money, but the percentage, which is the important point, had fallen from 329 in 1913 to 22.4 in 1919. The figures for the first six months of this year are much more satisfactory. During those six months the export to the Empire Overseas totalled £236,700,000, or 30.6 per cent. of the total bulk of our exports.

Sir F. BANBURY: Including India?

Mr. KELLAWAY: Yes, all oversea parts of the Empire. I think the House will agree that that is a gratifying improvement. There is no question that there are great possibilities of doing much more in increasing the percentage of the trade which this country does with our Empire overseas. We are dealing with a population of the Empire, roughly, of 450,000,000—I think 441,000,000 is the closest figure yet given. The possibilities of trade there are enormous. I believe an exhibition of this kind will enable much more to be done in increasing the trade between the Dominions and ourselves, and I believe it does that without raising any acute fiscal controversy or any political question likely to arouse controversy. The Committee of Management is a very representative and a strong one. The Guarantee Committee, which I hope will
succeed in securing the guarantee of £500,000 from private sources, contain some of the best known men in the City. I hope those Members of the House who are interested in the project will be willing to give such assistance as they can in enabling this Exhibition to be the success it ought to be. I hope I have succeeded in stating the case without raising controversy, for I certainly desire to raise none. I earnestly believe in taking the earliest opportunity of setting up in the capital of the Empire a worthy demonstration to the world and to all parts of the Empire of the unity and the resources of the Empire.

Sir F. BANBURY: I have not any doubt that the right hon. Gentleman believes this is a good Bill. I do not wish to express any opinion as to whether it is a good Bill or a bad Bill, but, for the sake of argument, I will assume it is a very good Bill. But however good it is, I do not think this is an opportune time or the proper time to spend £100,000 on any object, however good it may be. There is never a Bill introduced which is going to save money, but every statement of the Government and every Bill introduced is to spend money. During question time to-day an hon. Member had down on the Paper a question saying that £20,000,000 had been spent, and 9,000 ex-soldiers had been put upon the land. That was corrected by the Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture, who said £15,000,000 had been spent, and 7,000 soldiers had been put on the land. He went on to say that the Cabinet had come to the conclusion that more money ought to be spent, and that a circular to that effect would shortly be issued to the various county councils. Therefore, the moment we met at Question time we came to more money! Now we come to a Bill for more money! It is true that the right hon. Gentleman says that the Government will see that due economy is observed, but are the Government the right people to see that economy is observed? I should have thought they were the very last people in this respect, and that what is required is somebody to see that the Government have due regard to economy, and not the Government to say that to other people. However that may be, ever since the Budget was introduced this year we have gone on piling on the expenditure of the country.
The Government never seem to learn that you have to cut your coat according to your cloth, and that, however good the object may be, that at the present time we cannot afford it. Instead of coming down here and saying, "Here is a very good object, we had better spend more money on it," the Government should say, "Here are several good objects on which we might spend money if we had it to spend, but we have not got it to spend; and we are not only going to spend fresh money, but we are going to spend less money on objects which we have already agreed to spend money upon." One hundred thousand pounds in these days when we speak of £100,000,000 in an easy fashion and as if was nothing, may be small, but, after all, it is the spirit to which I object—the spirit which animates the Government. Nearly every Chamber of Commerce, if not every one, nearly all the newspapers, and many of our political associations, Liberal and Conservative, have urged economy upon the Government. All this has no effect whatever. An hon. Member said that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Miles Platting was in favour of it. Of course he is. He is always in favour of every kind of expenditure except, perhaps, on the War or on the Navy. I do not call that an argument at all. What the Government really must do, unless they wish to see financial chaos in this country, is to begin to cut down expenditure at once. The best thing we can do is to show the Government what we feel in this matter. I have no objection whatever to expenditure by the British Empire. Association. I dare say it will be a good thing, but we cannot afford to spend this money, and I sincerely hope the House will not agree to it

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I usually find myself in agreement with the right hon. Baronet, and I must say the present is no exception to that rule. We cannot afford this £100,000, and the Government ought really to have in mind the effect of all these things—financial chaos! However admirable this project is, the £100,000 to be spent is £100,000 too much. If the right hon. Baronet or any other Member chooses to divide the House against it, I, for one, shall support him. Might I, however, point out to the House that this British Empire Exhibition, which is being arranged by a number of energetic, public-spirited,
and patriotic gentlemen is a private venture, and that the Government are "butting" in. Perhaps they do not like that expression, but it is a fact. They are putting their oar in. If there is anything about the British Empire—of course this Government created the British Empire: the British Empire did not exist before they came on the scene, and all that goes to the credit of the British Empire redounds to the credit of this Government, and this Government only—therefore it must be used as Government propaganda. I do not mean to say that the right hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill is altogether conscious of this. It is more a subconscious feeling. Anything where there are Jingoistic people and the beating of the drums this Government must be in at!
We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that it was the intention to spend £100,000, and he also said that His Majesty the King and the Prince of Wales had undertaken to be, I think, President and Vice-President, or, at all events patrons of the exhibition. I put it to the House that it was an improper thing in a Second Reading speech to say that. It was quite improper. I hope that hon. Members present are not going to allow themselves to be swayed by that statement of the Minister in charge of the Bill. All our feelings in this House are the same about patronage in high quarters, and it is quite gratuitous to bring in the name of His Majesty and the Prince of Wales. Now I have one or two questions to ask in connection with this matter. We all want to see trade increased between the various parts of the British Empire. We all want to see the Empire prosperous and the members thereof commercially connected with each other. But we had allies in the War. It is just as important that we should trade with them. The French Government will probably hear of this as the result of the admirable speech of the Minister who introduced the Bill. Supposing they make representations that they would like a corner of the exhibition reserved for French products? Or if the Italians, or the Portuguese, or any other of our faithful Allies put forward a similar request, are they to be refused? If not, why have they not been invited? Why not have this a real international exhibition? Our Colonies, Dominions, Protectorates are not the only places with which we trade. I might say
in passing that the volume of trade between two parts of the world is not by any means alone sufficient to ensure friendly relations between them.
There is a second question as to the mandated territories. I raised this question on the Finance Resolution, but possibly at short notice for the right hon. Gentleman. I am giving him longer time now. The mandated territories: Are they to be invited to send products? I am not altogether certain what was said on this point. If they are to be invited, which class of mandated territories are to be invited to send exhibits and representatives to have stalls, and so on, in this exhibition? As hon. Members know, there are several kinds of mandates. There is, for instance, that in Mesopotamia under which we are supposed to be guiding the destinies of that country till the people can form a Government of their own. At all events, that is the story we have pitched to us almost daily from the Government Benches. There is the other type of mandate, which is really a thin veil for annexation, as in the case of the late German East Africa, now called the Kenya Colony. Personally, I should like to see these mandated territories in this exhibition fully represented, and for the same reason our Allies fully represented. If any other rich productive part of the world, through its Government, express a desire to take part in this exhibition, I shall be very glad to have their goods advertised.
Is Ireland to be represented? Is the Irish co-operative agricultural movement to have a stall or corner in this Exhibition? Are the results of British rule on the products and the agricultural riches of Ireland, as exemplified particularly in the destruction of the creameries, going to have a place? Will there be photographs of these creameries? Is the Exhibition really to be comprehensive and show all sides of Imperialism—good, bad and indifferent, or are these things to be glossed over? Are the products of forced labour in these new East African Protectorates going to be shown? Are we to have photographs showing the bridges, roads, and so on, which have been made by African forced labour under the beneficent rule of the Government of those countries—following the example of the Soviet Government of Moscow? We talk so much about the British Empire. Let us, therefore, look at it from all sides.
I said a word just now about trade as a means of cementing international friendships, and bringing the Empire closer together. But do not let us be led away by the fiction that trade alone is going to preserve the British Empire. I said that I wished to see trade increased to the uttermost in this country and in the Empire, and I hoped to see our Colonies and our Dependencies drawn closer and closer together to our Mother country—but by real ties of affection and respect. Trade alone will not do this. We govern our Empire by the word of the British Government. The Government, by a gesture, can do more to hold together our far flung British Empire than spending, not merely £100,000, but £100,000,000, on exhibitions of this sort.

Sir J. D. REES: If this exhibition is held, notwithstanding the arguments advanced by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury) I want to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill whether or not India will receive space equivalent to the predominant part she plays in the foreign trade of the Empire? If that question is answered in the affirmative—as I suppose it wilt be—will the Government of India pay for stalling her goods and for sending her exhibits here? For the £100,000 referred to will not cover this. Take again the case of Nyassaland. One of the most important features of the trade of our day is the increasing difficulty of getting sufficient supplies of cotton. Every year the United States increases the number of her spindles and every year she uses a larger and larger portion of her own growth, so that whereas she used to send us the lion's share of her cotton there is now a comparatively small portion coming, and year by year that small portion gets smaller. It is, therefore, of the utmost importance that the cotton of India and of Nyassaland—Empire-grown—should be provided for. The exhibits from Nyassaland, her cotton and tobacco—her cotton in particular—will be a not unimportant feature of the Exhibition, because the cotton grown in Nyassaland is excellent long staple cotton, comparing with that of Egypt. I therefore want to know whether the Nyassaland Government has to pay these expenses? I happen to know the income of that Government is so small and her requirements so large that they really cannot carry out properly the
primary functions of Government. Yet in face of this it is of the utmost importance that she should send her exhibits. We hear a great deal about small nationalities, as though there is any merit, in being small, which I for one cannot see. Nyassaland is a small colony, a small protectorate, a small nationality.
My concern is as to the vast value of these cotton products. This small country cannot afford to pay for the making of roads and various improvements, and they have to impose export duties which press very heavily on those in the trade. I want to know if my right hon. Friend is going to make a grant to that small, impoverished British Colony. I would also like to be told who will represent the great possession of India upon the executive committee of this exhibition. Will there be somebody beside the trade representative of the British Government and the High Commissioner? Will there be representatives of the cotton trade from Bombay? I would like to know if there will be an Indian gentleman connected with the cotton trade of India representing the interests of the Indian community. If my right hon. Friend will let me know what will happen in these respects if this exhibition takes place, I should be greatly obliged to him.

Mr. CLYNES: My hon. and gallant Friend behind me (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) has addressed to the House a number of points with which I have the fullest sympathy, but I suggest that they have very little bearing, if any, upon the objects of this Bill. He has, in fact, argued for a world-wide exhibition if we have one at all, and that all countries should be brought in, not only the outposts of Empire, but the most remote countries, whether they have been enemy countries or not, for he has argued that they should all be represented in an exhibition dealing with questions of trade. The only answer that is necessary is that at this moment, and I fear that for some time to come, any such ambitious scheme could not possibly succeed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wishes to misrepresent me. I inquired, for example, if any of our allies, such as France or Portugal, asked for permission
to take part would they be refused? That was my point.

Mr. CLYNES: I have the argument used by my hon. and gallant Friend in mind, and I think even something very much less than the ambitious world-wide exhibition he has suggested is still quite impossible. This Bill deals only with the British Empire Exhibition, and we ought to consider it on its merits and not say we shall refuse to have anything at all unless we cannot have everything. In these matters we must take what we can get for the time being. Looking at the matter from the standpoint of our internal Empire trade, I think everything can be said to commend a Bill of this kind. I take the view that there is a certain form of expenditure which can be shown to be the truest economy, and at times you can make, assist, and expand trade by a certain degree of expenditure upon trade or upon those contingencies which tend to make trade.
If that is not a conclusive argument to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury), I would like to put to him the fact that this Bill does not propose to spend £100,000 of public money for certain, but it proposes to guarantee up to £100,000 if there should happen to be a loss upon this expedition. It may well be that the State may not be called upon to pay a single penny. The right hon. Baronet suggested that I would support expenditure of this kind because I always support any expenditure, but he is quite wrong. I have frequently found myself in the Lobby voting against enormous items of expenditure, running up to millions, while, on the other hand, the right hon. Baronet has been found in the Lobby supporting the expenditure of those very large sums.

Sir F. BANBURY: The only large expenditure I have supported has been on the Army and the Navy.

Mr. CLYNES: Perhaps it wil be rather risky to venture too far upon these points, and I will content myself by the denial which I have entered, and the further statement that I think that the right hon. Baronet did me some little injustice with reference to the votes I have given in regard to expenditure on the Navy in the years preceding the War. All I wish to add is, that this is a proposal which offers to Parliament a little opportunity of doing great good
to Empire trade. So far as my experience goes, I think it is safe to say that they enable those engaged in trade to gather together a great amount of useful information. They bring together the apparatus and activities of trade into one great centre and in that way they help to make work. I know the right hon. Baronet is as anxious as we are to relieve unemployment and find profitable employment for those people, and I expected him to join us in this slight State outlay if it will tend towards reducing the distress amongst the unemployed. This House some months ago went a considerable distance towards meeting the views of the right hon. Gentleman when it provided some millions of money for trade purposes—encouraging and expanding trade in some neutral countries abroad. This Bill is only a continuation of a similar thing at a far less cost for the stimulation of trade within the Empire. While I cannot claim to speak for every hon. Member of the Labour party, I think I am safe in saying that this step is one which will assist in diminishing unemployment and in improving trade, and, therefore, it should have the support of every Labour Member in this House.

Mr. HOGGE: Before we agree to the Second Reading of a Bill which pledges us some months hence to a possible expenditure of £100,000, I think we ought to consider what we are doing, and what we are doing it for. I wonder who proposed this particular exhibition. I wonder who the author of it was. If I mistake not, there were quite a number of business men who were very anxious to have all kinds of exhibitions after the War was over. I know I was approached to use my influence to get Royal patronage for a Victory exhibition, a subject which has been referred to in another speech this afternoon, in order to bring together in this country all the products of industry and trade from the Allied countries which have taken part in the War. One would really like to know what influenced the Government in deciding upon this particular exhibition and what induced them to give this grant of money.
I am not impressed with the arguments used about the utility of these exhibitions. The only utility I have seen in most of them is in making a large deficiency, and securing some honours of
various kinds for the busybodies on the committees of those exhibitions. That has been the history of exhibitions so far as I have known them in this country. The truth of the matter is that we do not want an exhibition in this country to encourage trade in the Empire. What we want is a new Government that would cease to interfere with trade and would allow traders and business men to get on with their own business and develop our resources inside the Empire without any of the grandmotherly assistance given by the members of the present Government. I am sure the only exhibition which the up-to-date trader would deem desirable would be one in which the members of the present Government would be set apart, so that the people might see the people who are interfering with trade.
6.0 P.M.
I am certainly opposed to the grant of £100,000, although it is only a guarantee. It is quite true that this grant of £100,000 is contingent upon other people raising £500,000 amongst those, interested in the exhibition, but it is perfectly obvious that without a guarantee from the Government of £100,000, and the Royal patronage they have secured already, the exhibition authorities or the executive committee would find it extremely difficult to raise the £500,000. Would it not be very much better if those who wished to have this exhibition would get on with it, and if there is a loss which cannot be made up by those who have promoted the exhibition, then they should approach the Government to make a contribution towards the deficiency. I would like to know if there is any precedent for this expenditure. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell us whether there is any precedent for a Government intervening in a matter of this kind to guarantee a private body of traders, in this country from loss. After all, there are a great many exhibitions of one kind and another, not only trade exhibitions but Empire conferences and meetings of one kind and another held in this country, and those interested might very easily come to the Government with a view to lending financial support. It is not only an extremely dangerous precedent to set up, but it is entirely unnecessary. If the Board of Trade is to control this Exhibition, as appears to be provided in Clause 2 on account of the money promised in the event of a deficiency, it may control it quite as badly as it has controlled trade ever since the
signing of the Armistice, to the detriment of the trade relations of this country not only inside but outside the Empire. If the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London goes to a Division, I shall vote for him and am prepared to tell with him.

Mr. MYERS: I am reluctant to oppose this, having regard to the fact that my right hon. Friend (Mr. Clynes) has spoken in support of it. When the matter was before the House on the Financial Resolution several hon. Members on these Benches spoke against it, and it may seem somewhat extraordinary that some of us on this side should support the attitude of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and oppose the point of view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Platting. We agree with both right hon. Gentlemen as to the necessity for the consolidation of our Empire, but we believe that that is not likely to brought about on a purely cash basis. Other facts quite separate to the operations of trade have to be taken into consideration. We opposed this proposal on the last occasion because we believed it to be a huge business advertisement. If private enterprise in this country desires to extend its trade through the medium of an exhibition let it pay for its own advertisement. After all, the trade of the Empire has not done at all badly out of the War. The £100,000 which it is proposed to set apart for the purposes of this exhibition in case it may be required is an insignificant item compared with the tremendous War profits made during the past few years, and I would suggest that the business of this country from that point of view should pay for its own exhibition and be ready to meet the responsibilities for its own trade advertisements. Further, the proposed exhibition seems to me altogether too limited in its scope. The inter-dependence of the world's trade at the present time is one of those things which have to be recognised. We cannot keep our trade operations within the four corners of our own Empire. This very proposal cuts across the arrangement made with our Allies in the War with regard to future mutual trading, and the very holding of this exhibition is calculated to create some measure of suspicion in the minds of our Allies. Of course,
£100,000 is a small matter compared with our national expenditure. But still it represents a sum which could be usefully employed in many other directions. Look at the method we have been compelled to adopt for raising money for housing. We are holding the hat at street corners in order to ge subscriptions for Housing Bonds. This £100,000 would provide a hundred houses at the present cost, and there are many other avenues in which the same amount could be spent usefully. I object to the money being expended on advertising the businesses of large vested interests in this country.

Colonel Sir A. HOLBROOK: I rise to support the Bill. It is a very desirable thing that we should encourage the trade of the Empire. I have just returned from a conference in Canada, and I know that Canadian traders will welcome an exhibition of this sort because it will enable them to bring their products before the British public. During my tour in Canada I found a great desire on the part of the chief manufacturers there to do trade with England. I heard many complaints that they had little opportunity of letting England know what their productions are and how they can help to supply the needs of this great country. One of the speakers expressed himself anxious to know who promoted this exhibition. That does not concern me at all. The proposal simply carries out a very good idea which first found root in this country in 1850, the date of the Great Exhibition. We have always been pioneers in this direction, and I certainly think that the component parts of the British Empire should have an opportunity among themselves of seeing what can be done in the matter of trade. The hon. Member who last spoke referred to the housing question. I think he must have forgotten that this exhibition is not to take place until 1923, and by that time it is to be hoped the housing difficulty will have become a thing of the past. It seems to me that a very modest sum is being asked for in this Bill, and I hope, therefore, the House will give the proposal practically unanimous support. One hon. Member spoke about having an exhibition of the members of the Government. I would not support expenditure of money for anything of the kind, because I do not believe the British public would take interest in any such exhibition. We want to encourage trade, and
I shall therefore give this Bill my hearty support.

Dr. MURRAY: I rise to offer one or two objections to this Bill. I do not see why commercial exhibitions within the Empire, whatever their extent or character, should be financed by this country when other and more important movements are not financed in the same way. We have had a very important Medical Conference discussing questions of world-wide interest, but I cannot ascertain that the Government have taken any interest in it or contributed anything towards the expense of it. We have had learned societies holding conferences which help our higher national and social interests quite as much as this proposed exhibition would help our commercial interests. But again I do not find that the Government contribute anything towards the expense. I do not see why, if this principle of contribution is to be applied to commercial exhibitions, it should not be applied equally to conferences concerned with the higher interests of this world. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) is always found opposing expenditure upon good objects while he supports the outlay of vast sums on bad objects. He is quite willing to squander millions of money in Mesopotamia in order, I suppose, to provide Mallaby-Deely suits for tribesmen there. He would swallow all the camels of Mesopotamian expenditure while he strained at a gnat of this sort because, I suppose, it would produce in him a sort of spasmodic dyspepsia.

Mr. KELLAWAY: By leave of the House, I will answer some of the questions which have been put in the course of this Debate. I cannot congratulate the right hon. Baronet on his allies in this matter. I do not think that when he goes down into the City on business he would care to take them with him. But underlying his criticism there appears to be the assumption that all expenditure is necessarily bad. I believe he is a farmer in a little way, and I would ask him, would he proceed to cut down expenditure on his farm by cutting off the supply of seed and manures? Any business man who acts on the assumption that all expenditure is bad is heading straight for the Bankruptcy Court, and no one knows that better than the right hon. Baronet
himself. The Government have been asked to give this guarantee. It is only a guarantee. I do not think we shall ever be called upon to pay, because I believe the exhibition, in the hands in which it will be, will prove self-supporting. The object is to increase the amount of British trade in the Empire. How can anyone oppose a proposition of that kind? The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) suggested that the holding of this Empire Exhibition might affront our Allies. I believe that both France and Italy have too keen a sense of humour to object to the British Empire holding an exhibition for parts of its own Empire. Then I have been asked as to the position of India. The Indian Government are taking great interest in this exhibition. The Secretary of State was one of the original members of the Committee. The India Office is represented upon the Committee by two members, and there are also on the Committee two other men in a position to speak with authority on Indian trade.

Mr. HOGGE: But who was it suggested the exhibition?

Mr. KELLAWAY: I dealt with that point in my opening statement. The exhibition was suggested at a meeting in the City of London at which were present representatives of all our great Dominions overseas, of India and of every part of the Empire, and there a unanimous opinion was expressed that it was desirable to hold such an exhibition, and that its success would be greatly assisted if it were known it had the approval of the Government. I hope the House will see that we are not necessarily incurring any expenditure. The exhibition should be successful, but, in the event of there being a deficit, the Government is pledged to guarantee a sum up to £100,000, conditionally on those who have the immediate management of the exhibition being able to secure a guarantee of £500,000. With regard to the point that was raised about Nyasaland, I am not acquainted with the peculiar conditions of that country, but I feel sure that the British Cotton Growing Association will see that the cotton of Nyasaland is represented. I am certain that the common sense of the House, with out any appeal to Imperial sentiment—though I do not know why a Minister should hesitate to make such an appeal, after the great part that the Empire
played during the War—I am certain that the House will see that a proposal of this kind is in the best interests of the British trade, and is one of the practical means by which we can broaden the foundations of the employment available for the great body of our people.

Mr. KILEY: I hope the House will go to a Division on this matter. It will be very interesting to trace these proposals back to their origin. There were two bodies of private people who wanted to run exhibitions. Not being able to raise sufficient funds, they managed to obtain the support of some of the representatives of our Dominions. A meeting was called of these two private sets of people with the representatives of some of our Dominions here, and they managed to bring pressure upon the Government to undertake to guarantee a very large sum of money. Why should our Government, and our Government alone, undertake this guarantee? If any of the Dominions themselves had put up some of their money, and had then come and invited our Government to join with them, the Minister in charge would have had some good ground for coming before us. Are the Dominions putting up any money whatsoever? As I understand, they are not putting up a single penny, and yet we on their behalf are prepared to put up our money in order to push the trade of the Dominions. If they want to push their trade, let them by all means do so, but we have our own worries and troubles, and have to push our own business, for which we are prepared to pay.

Unless we get some assurance from the Minister in charge that the Dominions concerned are joining in this guarantee, I hope the House will reject the proposal.

Major HAYWARD: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Kellaway) spoke of the party or parties opposing this measure. I do not know whether any deep party issue is involved in it, but if so I hope I shall not be ostracised when I say that I am going to vote in favour of it. I am going to do so because I believe that in the past far too little has been done to encourage inter-Imperial trade. One method of encouraging Imperial trade was brought forward and passed by the Government last year, namely, Imperial preference. That was opposed by hon. Members on these Benches, including myself, and we were told that we had learned nothing from the War and had forgotten nothing. Whether that be so or not, I believe, as I have said, that far too little has been done in the past, and, personally, I am very glad to find that the Government and my right hon. Friend, who is in charge of this particular Department, are doing a great deal. Like the hon. Member (Sir A. Holbrook) who spoke just now, I have recently returned from Canada. I found there that a great deal is being done at present to encourage Imperial trade of all kinds, and I shall vote for this Bill because I believe it to be one step in the right direction.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 205; Noes, 30.

Division No. 345].
AYES.
[6 22 p.m.


Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.
Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)
Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Cairns, John
Dixon, Captain Herbert


Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James
Carr, W. Theodore
Dockrell, Sir Maurice


Astor, Viscountess
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, South)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Baird, Sir John Lawrence
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.


Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City of Lon.)
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. J. R.
Farquharson, Major A. C.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Coates, Major Sir Edward F.
Fell, Sir Arthur


Barnett, Major R. W.
Coats, Sir Stuart
Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.


Barnston, Major Harry
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Foreman, Henry


Barrie, Charles Coupar
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Forrest, Walter


Barrie, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Lon'derry,N.)
Collins, Sir G. P. (Greenock)
Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Gardiner, James


Bennett, Thomas Jewell
Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd


Borwick, Major G. O.
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham


Bottomley, Horatio W.
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Gilbert, James Daniel


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid)
Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John


Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Goff, Sir R. Park


Breese, Major Charles E.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Curzon, Commander Viscount
Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar


Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)
Gregory, Holman


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Greig, Colonel James William


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
M'Micking, Major Gilbert
Shaw, William T. (Forfar)


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Martin, Captain A. E.
Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)


Hallas, Eldred
Mitchell, William Lane
Simm, M. T.


Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar
Moles, Thomas
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Harris, Sir Henry Percy
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander


Hayward, Major Evan
Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)
Montagu, Rt. Hon. E. S.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Sugden, W. H.


Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Morden, Colonel H. Grant
Sutherland, Sir William


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Taylor, J.


Hills, Major John Waller
Morison, Rt. Hon. Thomas Brash
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Hinds, John
Morris, Richard
Thomas, Sir Robert J. (Wrexham)


Hirst, G. H.
Morrison, Hugh
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Mosley, Oswald
Thomson, Sir W. Mitchell (Maryhill)


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Nail, Major Joseph
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hood, Joseph
Neal, Arthur
Tickler, Thomas George


Hope, Lt.-Col. Sir J. A. (Midlothian)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Tootill, Robert


Hopkins, John W. W.
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
Tryon, Major George Clement


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.
Warren, Lieut.-Col. sir Alfred H.


Hume-Williams, Sir W. Ellis
O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.
Whitla, Sir William


Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Parker, James
Wignall, James


Hurd, Percy A.
Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry
Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)


Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Williamson, Rt. Hon. Sir Archibald


Inskip, Thomas Walker H.
Percy, Charles
Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Perring, William George
Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Jesson, C.
Pollock, Sir Ernest M.
Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)


Jodrell, Neville Paul
Prescott, Major W. H.
Wilson-Fox, Henry


Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Purchase, H. G.
Wise, Frederick


Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)
Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George
Rees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde]


King, Captain Henry Douglas
Reid, D. D.
Woolcock, William James U.


Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Yate, Colonel Charles Edward


Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)
Royce, William Stapleton
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H.


Lloyd, George Butler
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Lorden, John William
Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.
Younger, Sir George


Loseby, Captain C. E.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.



Lynn, R. J.
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


M'Donald, Dr. Bouverie F. P.
Scott, Sir Samuel (St. Marylebone)
Lord E. Talbot and Mr. Dudley


Macdonald, Rt. Hon. John Murray
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Ward.


M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)



NOES.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Herbert, Hon. A. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Richardson. R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish
Hogge, James Myles
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Bramsdon, Sir Thomas
Irving, Dan
Swan, J. E.


Briant, Frank
Kenwortby, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Cautley, Henry S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Thomas-Stanford, Charles


Devlin, Joseph
Lunn, William
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Williams, Aneurin(Durham, Consett)


Glanville, Harold James
Marks, Sir George Croydon
Williams, Col. P. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Morgan, Major D. Watts



Grant, James A.
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Henderson. Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Myers, Thomas
Major Barnes and Mr. Kiley.


Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill, accordingly, read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — JUVENILE COURTS (METROPOLIS) BILL— [Lords].

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. SHORTT: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
We have, as no doubt the House knows, arrangements in London at the present time for holding Juvenile Courts, but they are, of course, held entirely in the Courts presided over by the legal police magis-
trates, and the cases are dealt with in the same buildings as the other cases which come before those tribunals. The abolition of the sex disqualification has made a very great difference. Women are now entitled to sit as justices of the peace in the provinces. They are able to sit on equal terms with men, and all cases concerning children can come before them just as they can before men. In London, however, all cases connected with juvenile crime come before the paid police magistrates, and women cannot sit in those courts. I should not like it to be thought for a moment that I am suggesting that the Juvenile Courts in London have not done very good work in the past. They
have done extraordinarily good work, and they have shown that our police magistrates in London are keenly interested in this question, and are keenly alive to the sort of treatment which the juvenile delinquent ought to receive and to all that may be done to save children from a life of crime. I should not like it to be thought for a moment that I belittle in any way the work they have done. It has been an extensive work. The juvenile courts in London do not correspond in number with the ordinary Police Court tribunals. There are 14 Police Courts in the Metropolitain Police Court district There are at present only nine juvenile courts, but that has been found to be quite sufficient up to the present time. In 1913 4,109 cases came before those Courts, and in 1919 there were 5,462 cases in all, and when I tell the House that of the 4,000 odd cases in 1913 only three were sent to prison and that of the 5,400 in 1919 only one was sent to prison, it shows that in these Courts they have realised that imprisonment is a futile and barbarous method of correcting a child.
The proposals in this Bill, which was brought in in another place, have been, perhaps, more misrepresented and more misunderstood than almost any Bill that I remember of this description, and I should like the House clearly to understand what the proposals are. It was suggested at one time that the proposal was to set up one central Court in London, to which all children accused of crime were to be brought. That, of course, would have been a ridiculous suggestion. It would have been most inconvenient. It would have imposed great hardship upon the children's parents and guardians, and how anyone came to suppose that that was the suggestion I do not know, because certainly nothing that was ever said or written by anyone authorised to speak or write could possibly have conveyed such an idea. The proposal is that you should have separate Courts in London dealing with children only, but the intention was to have even more juvenile Courts than we have at present. Originally, the intention was to have one police magistrate for this particular purpose. It was thought that, having regard to the necessity of coordination and uniformity, one police magistrate might be bettor able to secure the desired ends than the present number,
but after consideration and discussion with those who are deeply interested in this matter, we have come to the conclusion that it is better to have a panel of justices who are specially qualified and specially interested and to choose the police magistrate from that panel. The proposed Court will consist of three persons. You would have as president a legally trained police magistrate, a man with legal practise, but you would have, in addition, a panel of lay justices of the peace, men and women, and in each Court you would choose probably one of each. It might even be that you would have two women, but at least one woman would be in a Court of three. Supposing it were a Court sitting, say, in Hackney. You would have there- a panel of local ladies and gentlemen who knew the district, knew the circumstances of the place, and knew all that it is necessary to know when you are dealing with such cases, and one of these would sit with the police magistrate who would preside in the Court. In the same way, if you had a Court at Greenwich or Wandsworth or Chelsea, you would have your police magistrate, but you would draw your lay help from the area itself.
So you would have in the court the police magistrate, learned and skilled in the practice of the law, who would have all the legal training that was necessary, and then you would usually have a gentleman and a lady, at any rate, one lady, who would know the area and would have the knowledge of the children and the parents and the home life, which is just as necessary in these juvenile courts as knowledge of the law. There would be a centre of juvenile court work, but it would not mean in the least that that would be the court to which all cases had to be brought. On the contrary, we want to make it as wide as possible in order that there might be the least possible inconvenience to parents who attend with their children. That is one of the points upon which we have insisted in this Bill, namely, that there should be at least one lady. It was suggested at one time that she might sit as an assessor only, but we who are responsible for bringing in the Bill are very strongly of opinion that it would be monstrous that all over the country except in London in these juvenile courts women should sit upon equal terms and in London they should not. It seemed to us to be an anomaly which was entirely
unnecessary and entirely inexcusable, and therefore we determined that in the constitution of the court there should be, at any rate, one woman. Equally we determined that the courts should be spread about London as far as possible so that you could have a court held in each district where you could have local lay justices who would understand the district and give the court the advantage of their local experience and knowledge.
The other main point on which we insisted was that no longer should children be taken to the police court to be dealt with for their juvenile delinquencies. We felt very strongly that even a separate entrance and a separate room was not sufficient. The child still goes to the police court and sees the uniformed policeman and probably while it is waiting with its parents, it may be for half an hour, see the criminals, and that may mean getting into touch with them. It does not seem to us to be a good thing that children should be allowed to go to police courts. For many of them it might have a sort of glamour which would have a very evil effect on them in many cases. The proper way to deal with them, in our view, is to have a building quite away from the police courts where all the police would be in ordinary plain clothes. They will be in a room and there they will be dealt with just as if they were in their own home or in their schools and not as if they were in a police court at all, and they can there be treated with an amount of sympathy and cleanliness which young children ought to have when they have gone wrong. We attach great importance to the court containing a woman who should really be able to make her influence felt with the court. We attach great importance to having the president of the court chosen from the panel of the police magistrates so that you can ensure that the president is a man specially qualified and specially interested in this subject, and that there should be as many courts in London as are necessary for the convenience of the parents, not to let the child be taken too far from its home and make it too much of a picnic to be taken to answer for its crimes, and whatever happens the court should not be held in an existing police court. I hope I have cleared away any doubts there were, and undoubtedly there were doubts, from letters in the "Times" and from resolutions which I have received from
numbers of bodies. There was a great deal of misapprehension about this Bill and I hope I have managed to clear it away. We had some delay in getting the Bill through, because the Lord Chancellor and I received deputations from a large number of bodies which are keenly interested in this matter. We discussed it and thrashed it all out and so far as those outside societies are concerned this is an agreed measure. I am not suggesting for a moment that that need necessarily weigh with the House at all, but for the information of the House I may say that we met all these individual societies and people and that they are quite satisfied with the measure as it stands. This is a Bill of great importance, and I am quite sure the House will appreciate that I am not in any way belittling the work that has been done by our police magistrates, but, none, the less, bettor can be done, and we ought to do it. Therefore I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I wish to put before the House the objections I have to the Bill, at all events in its present form. I agree with the Home Secretary that a very large amount of misconception certainly exists about the Bill and about the present arrangements at police courts in dealing with juvenile crime. It exists not only in those who wrote to the "Times." It exists, I am sorry to say, in much better informed circles, and I am not quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself is entirely free from it. It certainly existed in the Debates in another place. In London you have stipendiary magistrates. The stipendiary magistrates do practically the whole of the work. In concurrent jurisdiction with them are the lay magistrates, who consist of men and women of considerable experience. Men have been magistrates there for many years, and ladies have recently joined them, and in anything I am saying—I have had a short experience of lady magistrates in the country—I do not suggest for a moment that they are not an exceedingly useful addition to any bench of magistrates to which they are appointed. The stipendiary magistrate sits and administers justice in a way with which some of
us are well familiar, and it is an extraordinary thing that I have not heard a single word said against the way in which they do their work in London. The Home Secretary said that himself, and those who have discussed the Bill in another place went out of their way to point out the great advantages of having a man who came, not from the district, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested, and who knows about the parents, and so forth, and has been calling upon them—it is sometimes suggested that they are busy-bodies—and it was pointed out that the working people trusted the stipendiary who came from outside, and preferred him to the very best-intentioned local magistrate, male or female, who intended well, but frequently did not treat them in the same way as a stranger.
You have these men administering justice in this way. One knows them and one has seen the work they do. The whole value of their work depends upon this, that they are omnipotent in their small sphere. The omnipotence in their limited sphere is one of the reasons why they do it well. And they do it well, and they have a staff round them. They have Police Court missionaries, male and female. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to them at all. I speak from personal experience of many years, and their influence there, men and women, is beyond all praise in dealing with juvenile crime in London. You have all these people working and the magistrates above them. You are proposing by this Bill for the first time to make these magistrates sit as one of a Court of three. I do not care whether the other two are male or female. I sit very frequently with laymen on benches administering what one hopes to be justice in certain cases. Take the difference, both in time and ease with which you do it, whether you have to sit with two or three people on your right hand side, and when you are administering justice by yourself. For the first time you are putting the stipendiary magistrate in the position that he can be over-ruled by the lay magistrates. I do not in the least object, if there is a real reason for making this change, but I have not heard one single word—the Home Secretary has not suggested a reason—from any one of these societies that the change is asked for or needed. The magistrates, I believe, are unanimous in saying that they
see no need for this change; but they have agreed to this Bill rather than have other Bills brought forward. I understand that is the view that has been put forward to the Home Secretary. If there is any objection to the way in which the stipendiary magistrates are doing this work, there is an alternative jurisdiction at the present time, and that is the jurisdiction of the lay magistrates. The lay magistrates sit in the different town halls and other buildings throughout the country to try cases. School board summonses were formerly taken before the stipendiary magistrates in London, but now not a single one of these cases is taken before the stipendiary magistrates. For some reason or other I suppose the school board authorities think that the work can be better done by the lay magistrates, where both men magistrates and women magistrates can sit; although I believe these cases were tried before the lay magistrates previous to the appointment of women magistrates. If a change is desired, why should not these juvenile cases be taken before the lay magistrates? Only about three cases in many thousands result in imprisonment. The cases require little legal knowledge. I am familiar with Cambridge and South coast districts, where the children are taken in a separate Court before the lay magistrates, men or women, as they chance to be.
If this Bill is persisted in, I hope the House will look carefully at its provisions. Look at the unpleasant way in which this matter is to be dealt with. You start by picking a panel of police justices. These justices have to be chosen by the Home Secretary. That will be a very invidious task. He will have to pick out from highly competent magistrates a certain number who are to be put on the panel as being fitted to do this particular work. I do not know whether he will choose them on the ground that they are fit to try juvenile cases or on the ground that they will be able to get the adhesion of the two lay magistrates to their decisions. When the Home Secretary has chosen these magistrates they are to be taken away, I suppose, from their ordinary work for a certain number of days each week and go to the places where they are to sit with the lay magistrates. Then there is to be a second panel. The justices of the County of London are to choose a panel from
amongst their number. I speak as a lawyer and, personally, I prefer the stipendiary magistrate. Of course, that is a preference which is not shared by everybody. It will be a very invidious task to pick out lay magistrates to sit upon these panels as being specially fitted for this particular work. It will mean a slur upon other men who have been working for years on the magisterial bench and taking, among other cases, school board cases. In addition to the two panels you are to select the particular court where the lay magistrates are to sit with the Metropolitan Police magistrates. These are objections which had better be dealt with by a Bill drafted in some other form.
Many hon. Members will remember what took place in 1908, the result of which was the creation of separate Courts. These separate Courts were set up in the metropolis. We have heard, quite rightly, from the Home Secretary, of the inadvisability of bringing children into the ordinary police Courts. He said they see policemen in uniform or they may see a criminal, and they might have to use the same retiring rooms. What has the Government done to deal with the matter? They have built nine separate Courts adjacent to the other Courts. The children enter by separate doors and they have every sort of separate convenience. The Home Secretary says they see policemen in uniform. Is he aware that no policeman in uniform is allowed inside a juvenile Court? There is no policeman there with uniform, and certainly the magistrate has no uniform. The other people there are the Police Court missionaries, men and women, and the probation officers. I cannot praise too highly the work of these men and women. They have had years of experience, far greater experience than any of the lady magistrates who are, no doubt, pressing very strongly their desire to sit in Court for the hearing of juvenile cases. These people have been working for years in the courts and are in the closest touch with the class of child or parent concerned. It is no use thinking that you can deal with these people merely by talking in Parliament or by walking about the West-End. You must have experience of these people in the south or the east of London, and you must know their faults and their virtues, and how they resent
being patronised. Do these Police Court missionaries support this proposed change?

Mr. SHORTT: They will still be there.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Do they support this change?

Viscountess ASTOR: Yes.

Mr. RAWLINSON: They do not. They are content with things as they are. They are content with the magistrates who have hitherto dealt with this class of case. Under this Bill the Home Secretary is not content with his separate police courts, with their separate entrances and waiting rooms. They are to be scrapped. The children are not to go near them. They are to go away to some town hall, I do not know how far off. The unfortunate police magistrate who will have to try the cases will be asking for an allowance for an extra motor car. At the present time he can go upstairs to take the juvenile courts in the same building where he hears his other cases, but under this Bill I suppose he will have to adjourn his court and drive to the town hall where the children's cases are to be tried, while these buildings, upon which we have spent so much money, will have to be used for another purpose, or more likely will not be used for any purpose. Lastly, the Bill seeks power to shut up one of the present Metropolitan police courts, and rumour tells me that it is proposed to take over the Marlborough Street Police Court. That court, which is off Regent Street, is a very much-used court. It was built at enormous expense, and is one of the most extravagant police courts in London; in fact, the most extravagant. I understand it is proposed to close this court and use it as a central court, not to try cases, but as a sort of central bureau through which the organisation for juvenile courts in various parts of London will be conducted. That is a very extravagant method of procedure. I do not believe for one moment that you can afford to shut up that police court. It means closing one of your best used courts. The power to close that court is a very inadvisable power to give to the Home Secretary, and I do not knew who supports such a proposal. Perhaps that is a Committee point.
I have no personal interest of any kind in this matter, but I do appeal to the
Government, and to the House, not to proceed with the Bill as it stands. I have had a good deal of experience, both in the South and the East of London, in dealing with various classes of the community, and I am certain that this is a mistaken way of doing what the House wants to carry out. I am certain that the pressure that has been brought upon the Government in regard to this matter has been brought by well-connected, well-intentioned people, ladies in high position in the West end, who are very anxious to come and sit on these magisterial benches. I do not wish to belittle the good work that can be done by women magistrates, but I maintain that you are upsetting the system which has worked exceedingly well in the past. If you want to make any change, which I suggest is not necessary, you have the alternative of the lay magistrates who can do this work, as they are doing it, and who have had experience of school board cases, which are very similar to the class of case which would come before the juvenile courts. These petty crimes will be just as well tried by the lay magistrate. On all these grounds I beg to move the rejection of the Bill.

7.0 P.M.

Mr. HOHLER: I beg to second the Amendment. It is quite clear that his argument is well-founded that this Bill was really promoted by the Government under impulse from some high and influential ladies in London society. I say so for this reason. Why is it that the Home Secretary has forgotten to deal with stipendiary magistrates in other parts of the country? If this Bill is really essential, surely it is not to be limited to the Metropolitan Police area. There are a great number of stipendiaries in other parts of the country, and the law will continue to be administered by them as hitherto, without the least objection on the part of His Majesty's Government or the Home Secretary. If this reform is really needed, that surely cannot be right. In introducing this Bill the Home Secretary omitted all reference to the fact that already these children's cases are heard in a manner that is quite unobjectionable, without the presence of uniformed policemen, and in a building which, although having communication with the ordinary police court, is solely set aside for that
purpose. Why should that be objectionable in London only? Why was he not more frank in explaining this Bill to the House, which is not necessarily informed on these facts? He said the Bill had been misunderstood, and that letters had been written to the papers suggesting that this Bill was really one to set up one central court. The Home Secretary tells us that this is not so, and, of course, I accept anything he tells us, but when I look at the Bill the language used does not bear him out, I venture to say. If he will look at Clause 1, Sub-section (4), he will see that it says:
The Order may, for the purpose of facilitating the establishment of juvenile courts, provide for the discontinuance of any of the existing police courts or for the use of an existing police court solely for the purpose of a juvenile court.
That means that you may provide and use an existing police court solely for the purposes of a juvenile court. What can it mean but that? And that must be what those who have written to the newspapers thought it did. I venture to think those who promoted this Bill never understood it, find I further say that in my judgment it is a Bill for the convenience of women magistrates. They want to assert some right with regard to this matter. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] "Hear, hear!" some Members say. Well, it is quite right that they should. But surely the stipendiary magistrates, who for many a long year, sitting by their selves, have formed a court of summary jurisdiction—that is, no two magistrates required—ought to be considered. The Home Secretary admits that there is not a single cause of complaint in regard to their administration, and that is very high testimony, and there is the additional fact that you have got these children removed from everything that is objectionable. The Bill is based on a misconception. If my right hon. Friend will look at Clause 1, Sub-section (1) he will see that under the proviso, that if a child is brought before the magistrate in the ordinary court, and he finds it inconvenient in the interests of justice to adjourn the case to the children's court, he can continue to adjudicate, and hear the case, and determine it.

Mr. SHORTT: Not in his ordinary court.

Mr. HOHLER: Look at the proviso.

Mr. SHORTT: The proviso is for the ease where a lady could not be got to form a court.

Mr. HOHLER: I do not so read it, and I do not think that is the interpretation of the proviso. The proviso is not to prevent the police court magistrate sitting alone in any case where he considers that it would be impracticable for the court to be constituted "in manner aforesaid," or that it would be inexpedient in the interests of justice to adjourn the case. I understand that to refer not only to the time when the lady is not there, but to refer to a time when the child came before him sitting as a magistrate. Indeed, I can see nothing in this Bill which would preclude a stipendiary magistrate from hearing such a case if brought before him and in adjudicating upon it. I have this further objection to the Bill. I respectfully submit to the House that this is not a time for increasing expenditure, and I wish to know who is to find this money, and whether any portion of it is to be cast on the rates? If it is, I certainly oppose this Bill, if anybody will go to a division upon it. The rates are enormous now, and we should save every halfpenny we can. This Bill assumes that all existing courts are to cease to be courts for the trial or hearing of offences by children. If you are not going to centralise, how many courts will you require throughout this great area of the Metropolis? You will require a considerable number. Also you will have an additional staff, and you will have all the expenses of running these courts.

Mr. SHORTT: Nothing additional.

Mr. HOHLER: If you have additional courts I should have thought you would have had additional expense; at least in regard to caretakers and the like, that cannot be got over. You are setting up a wholly now system all over London, and all for the sake of a few women who have been appointed magistrates in London. I wish to ask my right hon. Friend what is the estimate of the expenditure, how many courts he proposes to set up, is he going to acquire new buildings for this purpose, and on whom will the burden of the erection of these courts fall? If it falls on the rates I shall certainly oppose this Bill. If it falls on the Imperial Exchequer I say that our burdens are quite enough, and that there is no real need for the Bill, and if in time it is found that
real reform is required it ought to extend to the whole country and not be limited merely to the Metropolitan Police area.

Major HAYWARD: When I read this Bill for the first time I did so with a very great deal of pleasure, and I welcomed the Second Reading unreservedly, and when I discovered that objection was taken to the Second Reading by two hon. and learned Gentlemen I listened with very great attention to find out why they, with their experience and authority, were opposing this measure. Having listened to them with the greatest care, I have failed to find any reason in anything they have said for doing otherwise than voting for the Second Reading of this measure. I could not find anything in their arguments detrimental to the Bill itself. The argument seems to me to be that the Bill does not go far enough, because it includes the Metropolitan area only. One objection raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman who seconded the rejection suggested that even if the Bill were passed it would still be possible for a stipendiary magistrate to hear the case in his own court. With very great deference, I differ from the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the Bill is carefully read it will be seen that it provides that a case cannot be heard in the ordinary police court and must be heard in a special court. I welcome this Bill unreservedly, because it is a further development of that enlightened and humane administration of the criminal law that applies to juveniles.

Sir J. D. REES: When any member of the Government addresses the House it is always desirable to separate that portion of his speech which is illustrative or argumentative or ornamental from that portion which is operative, material, and essential. The Home Secretary's speech, considered in that light, seems to me to result in this: He wants to have women magistrates sitting with the stipendiary magistrates in London to try juvenile cases. I cannot imagine a more suitable or more proper place for a woman magistrate, and I should welcome her there; but is not this a circuitous and expensive method of bringing about what might be much more simply arranged? We must not suppose, because there have been no women magistrates sitting before, that women's influence has not been brought to bear upon the cases of children accused of offences. The police court
missionaries have brought such influence to bear. But if it is desirable that women magistrates should sit with stipendiary magistrates, why cannot they sit with them in the same court-houses? I was profoundly unimpressed with the argument of my right hon. Friend that it would not do for children to see a policeman. A policeman in uniform is not a terror to any but the evildoer and the wrongdoer, and so little does that argument appeal to me that I agree far more with the view that:
Vice is a monster of such hideous mien, As to be hated needs but to be seen.
If their little eyes should fall upon a malefactor, and he was a very terrible-looking person—which, I beg leave to say, they generally are not—it would inspire that infant with a dread of wrong and wrongdoers. I have seldom heard so weak an argument from so exalted a quarter. I do not think my right hon. Friend was quite happy in omitting to mention the, all-important fact, if it be a fact, that the stipendiary magistrates disapprove of this Bill, and do not see the slightest necessity for it.

Mr. SHORTT: That is not a fact.

Sir J. D. REES: The majority of them.

Mr. SHORTT: Those whom I have consulted, and I have consulted them through the chief magistrate, approve of this Bill. I could only consult them through the chief magistrate—that is the proper course. He consults whom he chooses, and the chief magistrate, after consulting with his colleagues, approved the Bill.

Sir J. D. REES: So far as my information goes, he was not very successful in representing the views of the majority of his colleagues.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I understand they were unanimous in favour of saying that no change was needed, and only approved the Bill on the ground that, if they were to have a Bill, this was the best Bill.

Sir J. D. REES: I really do not wish to oppose anything which is supported by eminent, capable, enthusiastic, and philanthropic ladies. I cannot think it necessary to create nine new courts which will cause a good deal of expense. Are they to sit in the existing police courts? If
so, why have two bites of a cherry, having two courts sitting in the same place to try the children, who could be tried by the magistrate with the lady magistrate? How can the right hon. Gentleman say that this does not cost more? Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the majority of stipendiary magistrates are not opposed to this specific proposal?

Mr. SHORTT: They are not.

Sir J. D. REES: It is a pity that that fact was not made public before, because the contrary allegation made an impression upon me. The stipendiary magistrates are extremely able men who have performed their duty to the satisfaction of everybody. I should be as glad as any Member of this House to see these little criminals made as comfortable as possible, and extremely glad to see a lady magistrate taking part in imprisoning them or sentencing them to the birch as the case may be. But I hope that this may be brought about without creating nine extra courts. I would ask the Home Secretary to tell us what it is going to cost. Even this Bill provides for everything going on as before. Therefore, one wonders why such a Nasmyth hammer should be required to crack this little nut.

Viscountess ASTOR: I have listened with interest to speeches of hon. Members who are opposed to this Bill. They have shown the same old prejudices of mind that have always been shown when it comes to a question of reform. I congratulate the Government on having brought forward such a splendid Bill. The hon. Member for Cambridge University is wrong in saying that the Bill is pushed forward by titled or coroneted ladies.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I never used the word "coronoted" or "titled." I never referred to the hon. Member in any shape or form.

Viscountess ASTOR: I quite agree. I was not taking it to myself at all. I suppose that the hon. Member was talking about ladies who have been made justices of the peace; but that has nothing to do with this Bill. Neither I nor they have promoted the Bill. It is the women who have been dealing with the juvenile criminals all their lives from whom the pressure comes, and not from those whom the hon. Member calls the fashionable justices of the peace. The hon. Member
has said that magistrates are not pressing for this. I admit that there are a few magistrates who are not pressing for it; but every woman who is interested in juvenile criminals is for this Bill, and so is every woman's organisation.

Colonel ASHLEY: In London?

Viscountess ASTOR: Everyone. The Howard Association, the Wage Earning Children's Committee, the Penal Reform League and others. I believe that some Magistrates are against it. Of course, magistrates have done as well as they could do without women. But it is not from the point of view of women but because the Bill is needed very much that I support it. The hon. Gentleman (Sir J. D. Rees) has referred to the little criminal not being frightened by a policeman. I doubt whether all of us are not still frightened by a policeman. Children grow up in terror of a policeman, and the hon. Member (Colonel P. Williams), next to me, told me that he was, and still is, frightened by a policeman, and the hon. Member opposite ought still to be frightened by them. Reference has been made to the expense that may be caused. These criticisms are made by a certain type of mind that is against all agitation for reform in reference to drink and women, and when it comes to dealing with children, that type of mind puts itself in evidence. Even if there were extra expense, do you think that the nation cares about expense to save these high-spirited children, who are not really criminals, and put them on the right road? It is distressing to sit here and listen to criticism like that which we have, heard to-day, all, no doubt, perfectly honourably intended. I have nothing to say against these Gentlemen, but it is the type of mind that I am going against. I hope that the Home Secretary will show the hon. Gentleman that this will not be expensive. But even if it is, if it is going to help those children I hope that the House will vote for this Bill. If we do go to a Division, I want the House to remember that the type of mind to which I refer is against progress and reform of every sort, and not to be led away by it. All organised women's associations are for this Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is a very good reason for voting against it.

Viscountess ASTOR: I wish that the right hon. Baronet had a constituency in which there were women instead of bankers. My patience is beginning to wear out and I am afraid that sometimes I have a sharp tongue. I congratulate the Government, and I am sure that the voice of those who favour progress will also congratulate them for having brought forward this Bill. If the missionaries who have sat in courts all these years were asked they would say that they rejoice that the children are going to have a separate court of their own. It is not really a case of dealing with criminals, but of deciding how they can best help the children and not punish them. There is not an hon. Member of this House who has got a child who does not welcome the chance of these unfortunate children going to a court where they can get the tenderest treatment and have the woman's point of view brought forward where it is most needed.

Mr. CAUTLEY: There is one point of principle which I do not think has been sufficiently before the House. That is the position as to the stipendiary magistrate. Stipendiary magistrates were appointed because of the general dissatisfaction with lay magistrates. It was felt in our industrial towns that, lay magistrates were not sufficiently impartial and that, men with legally trained minds were move likely to give decisions free from prejudice. For that reason stipendiary magistrates were appointed. They were not made co-equal or to sit with other magistrates and to be overridden by them. They were made to sit alone and administer justice by themselves. As the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge. University (Mr. Kawlinson) has said, the appointment of these magistrates has given universal satisfaction. As it stands, the principle of this Bill will be impaired, and for the first time men with the legally trained mind will be in a position of being overruled by the lay element. I am not clear whether it is necessary in the children's court, to have a stipendiary at all. The Home Secretary has not deal with that question. It seems to me that this question might be settled easily by the withdrawal of the children's cases from the stipendiary magistrate's court, leaving them to be dealt with by lay magistrates, men and women. I rather share the general view of those who are in favour of this Bill, that you should have the
benefit of women's sympathy and the help of people who show those qualities in dealing with these children of tender age who otherwise would come before the police court. But if that is so, why do you want the stipendiary in? I do not feel satisfied with this Bill and think that these people might be withdrawn from the stipendiary magistrate.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. HALL: I do not know why this change is necessary, because the Home Secretary, when he makes these appointments, goes most carefully into the credentials of those whom he puts on the Bench and endeavours to get the best people to carry out the duties of stipendiary magistrates. Enormous amounts of money have been expended on some of our police courts to enable them to deal in the most humane manner with these various cases, especially juvenile cases. The magistrates are, as a rule, sympathetic, kind-hearted men who have got their duties to perform. They become closely acquainted with the people in the district from which the cases come before them. Surely it is better that these children's cases should come before men who know all about the district and who will look upon these children in a favourable way. Westminster and Marlborough Street Courts are cases in which a large expense has been incurred in order to give all necessary protection in the case of women and children who have, unfortunately, to be brought up there, and it would be well to have these cases dealt with as they are at the present time. But if in some of the police courts you have not got the necessary accommodation, it would be easy for the Home Secretary to have the necessary improvements and alterations made so that the children may be kept away from the habitual criminal. We do not want them to get into touch with the habitual criminal. I would much prefer to see these cases dealt with as they are now. If any alterations are necessary, by all means have them; hub do not adopt the extraordinary idea of having one court set apart. It is not necessary to anticipate that you are going to have your magistrates continually busy looking after the children in one court. At all events I hope it will not be necessary, because, there will not be sufficient work.

Mr. D. HERBERT: The hon. Member for Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) made
a speech which, I think, is typical of the support of the wrong idea behind this Bill. The stipendiary magistrate who has done his work, even in the juvenile courts, without the slightest complaint, is a step ahead of the old system of the jurisdiction of lay magistrates. When you go back and associate, in these very important juvenile courts, the professional man who does his work well and lay magistrates who are not so well acquainted with the work, that is retrogression and not progression. What is at the bottom of this Bill is no doubt a perfectly praiseworthy idea on the part of some of those ladies who have recently become members of the magistracy, and that is to find work for themselves in which they think, and no doubt rightly, they are well qualified to assist men. So be it, as long as they, being lay women, assist lay men. That they can do all over the country. But it is quite a different point of view to suggest that these ladies, many of them with little experience of juvenile offenders, can usefully assist the stipendiary. Apparently the idea of the Government or of the promoters of the Bill is not confined to a proposal to put ladies into these courts, because you are to associate with the stipendiary magistrate, not merely a lady magistrate, but a male magistrate as well. If it is necessary, which I doubt very much indeed, to have ladies to assist the stipendiary magistrates in London, I submit that this Bill is not the proper way to carry that out. They could, if necessary, sit as assessors in order that the stipendiary, who knows his work, may have special advice with regard to the special type of case before him. The whole argument brought forward on behalf of the lady magistrates is vitiated by the form of this Bill, which provides for a male lay magistrate as well as a lady magistrate sitting with the stipendiary. With regard to expense, the hon. Member for Plymouth said some hard things which were not justified, and certainly I am not one of those who intends to oppose reasonable expense in any matters intended for the good of the poorer classes. But to go to the expense of setting up separate courts and getting new buildings for them when there is not the slightest objection to the holding of even the peculiar courts which are to be constituted under this Bill in existing buildings, is another matter. There is not the slightest reason why they should not be held in the same rooms in
which courts are held now. We hear much about the need for watching every item of expenditure in this House. That proposal alone is one very serious reason for opposing this Bill.

Mr. D. M. COWAN: I have had many years' experience of dealing with young people. I think there is no problem more important than that we should see to it that every boy and girl has the best opportunity of making all that he or she can of his or her life. I support this Bill in so far as it tends to divorce juvenile delinquents from the ordinary Police Courts. Child nature is a peculiar thing. We have the sensitive and shrinking child, and the bold and assertive child. Both of them have to be guarded against the possible evil of the ordinary Police Court. Experience has taught us in many cases the great harm done to the child by contact with criminality. It has been said to-night that the Courts in London have been carried on without complaint. What is the only qualified quarter from which complaint can come, or, at all events, what is the best qualified quarter? The answer is, from the children themselves, the children who are tried. We are very often apt to leave out of consideration those who most require consideration. A second reason which I was sorry to hear urged against the Bill was that it would be expensive.

Mr. SHORTT: It will not.

Mr. COWAN: I am glad to hear that. Even if it were expensive, I would like to support, in the strongest possible terms what has been said by the hon. Member for Plymouth. Of late we have had far too much of this quoting of expense whenever it means something for the benefit of those who require to be looked after by the rich. As one who has supported this Government with reasonable service for the last two years, I do not like to hear cheers when there is a suggestion that we should take away from the children that which we promised them before the election and during the War. It is a matter of great regret to me that references to saving on education are greeted with cheers from some quarters of the House. You cannot dissociate education from any part of child life. Too long we have looked upon education as a thing of school attendance only; it is nothing of the sort. Education is more or less a preparation for the whole of life. With
that in view, we must see that the child's home circumstances and the circumstances attending its young life, particularly when it is in difficulty, receive the kindly, generous, and sympathetic consideration of Members of this House.

Mr. BARTLEY DENNISS: I heartily approve of the principle of having a woman justice to sit on all these cases. The intuition of women and the reason of man form the most perfect tribunal that one can imagine. It is not perfect now when you have only men to decide questions connected with children. I am not at all sure that I see the object of having a second justice there. I have no doubt that that has been considered by those who framed the Bill, and that the Home Secretary, who is a very experienced lawyer, thinks it is an improvement. I should rather have doubted it. That the stipendiary should have a woman with him seems to me to be a very much needed improvement calculated to make the Court one which will thoroughly understand both the woman's view with regard to children and the man's view. I have had a very large family and have been married for 43 years. I have grandchildren. I know that my wife understands them a great deal bettor than I do. If I had to consider the conduct of a child, I would much rather she sat with me to try the case than that I should sit alone, although I am a lawyer. I think we must all agree with the principle of the Bill The only proposal that has roused a storm in the House is the setting up of new Courts. I understand from the Home Secretary that it is not the intention to have any extra buildings.

Mr. SHORTT: No extra buildings of any sort or description. We are already discussing the matter with local authorities with the view of getting the use of some public building or house belonging to the local authority. There will be no expense whatever.

Mr. DENNISS: That will remove a great apprehension. There is one little objection to the Bill which might be considered in Committee. It seems a pity that, when you have Courts attached to the regular Courts, they should not still be used. Otherwise you will be taking a stipendiary magistrate away from his Court, say, to a town hall, and he will have to go back to his court That will mean a waste of his and the public's
time. Perhaps the Home Secretary will explain that.

Mr. SHORTT: That question we have gone into very carefully in detail. Courts can be held in buildings away from the police courts without in the least interrupting the work of the police court.

Mr. DENNISS: That removes any objection I have to the Bill.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I should like to say a few words as one who has had a long experience as a school medical officer. It is surprising to hear those who oppose this Bill speak of the stipendiary magistrates without in any way considering what is the relationship between a man and the mind of a child he has to judge. It seems to me that the question is really psychological. The object of the law, I understand, is thoroughly to understand the criminal or the prisoner, and to try to get at the reason of his or her offence. The stipendiary magistrate may be, and no doubt is, a most exemplary person, but if any of as can go back to the day when we were six or seven years of age, I think we would say that our general conception of a stipendiary magistrate was of something that froze our insides. The hon. Member who has just spoken mentioned the fact that he has contributed so largely to the nation. We quite realise that a father has special opportunities of judging his child, but we all know, whether as fathers or sons, that between the father and the son there is a deep gulf, while the woman, married or unmarried, has instinctively a feeling with the child. I only mention what are truisms to say that they are borne out by the experience in school medical work, where we have the great advantage of having associated with us nurses and lady school officers, and I can assure the House it makes an enormous difference to be able to deal with such matters through a woman's mind. Power is taken to hold the courts in other places than ordinary courts. Personally, I attach little importance to that. What terrifies the child and what prevents real justice being done is not a question of bricks or mortar or the room, but those who conduct the interrogations. If that person is a woman I am sure that the result will be all that is required for the sake of justice, whether you hold the court in a police court or anywhere else.
I endorse what has been said against unnecessary expenditure. That is permissive, and I hope the provision with regard to using other rooms will not be pressed. The right hon. Gentleman has taken great pains to vindicate his action in already having gone out of the way to provide separate rooms, and I know that great stress has been laid on that proposal by some people who advocate this Bill. I say it is wrong, and if there is in it any expenditure such as is contemplated, then I would say, have the cases tried in the ordinary courts, if necessary. I do not think that matters anything like as much as having women engaged in the case. There is a suggestion that there should be two justices, one of whom should be a woman, but I hope the two may very often be women. Mention has been made, and disparagingly, of the class to which women justices belong. I think a good many of us would wish that before long women justices might be found in all classes, and that it would be very useful to have some women from the different classes possibly sitting on the same bench together. Some hon. Members have attributed this Bill to a desire on the part of women justices to find work for themselves. That is a gross misunderstanding of the case. All those interested in the welfare of children for years past know that this Measure has been gradually crystallising out of modern knowledge and experience, long before the War or before women justices were appointed.

Mr. WIGNALL: I have studied this Bill with some interest as I have had experience for a number of years of juvenile courts. There are one or two things in the Bill to be commended. One is the provision for separate places for dealing with juveniles. Police courts have only accommodation for the ordinary course of business, but even in that case I have known of children kept entirely apart from the ordinary business and when the ordinary cases had been dealt with and when the court had been cleared the children were brought in and a juvenile court constituted. The provision of separate places can, I think, be easily adopted in the metropolis. Child life is the most important thing to which we can give attention, and the prevention of children becoming criminals is a work that commends itself to everyone and in which no expense should be spared. I do not think any extra expense will be
incurred in providing separate places, so that the economists can rest m peace. The bringing in of women justices to these courts was sadly needed and now there is no difficulty, but why I ask should you compel a stipendiary to preside over a court for juvenile offenders. A stipendiary magistrate is appointed because of his knowledge of the law and its technicalities and the different problems which magistrates have to decide. The offences as a rule for which children are committed are very small indeed. The important thing is to save the child from drifting into the criminal classes, and I do not think that any stipendiary understands the needs of childhood or the best means of dealing with children better than the ordinary justice of the peace. The majority of cases in juvenile courts are for offences which we have all committed more or less, not even excluding the Prime Minister. I have often thought if I had been put into a juvenile court for every offence I committed I would have got a good long penalty. The main point is what is best in the interests of the child, and in that aspect it does not seem to matter whether the court has the stipendiary or other justices. I think it would be far better not to impose this task on the stipendiary and let him be engaged in his far more important business in the other courts. However, I am not going to oppose the Bill. I am rather in favour of it, and I commend the Government for dealing with the subject. There are more good points in the Bill than the one or two bad ones which I have mentioned, and I support the Bill in the belief that it will help to save children from becoming criminals.

Mr. RAWLINSON: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

IRELAND.

MRS. J. ANNAN BRYCE (ARREST).

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 19th October, proposed the Question, 'That this House do now adjourn."

8.0 P.M.

Mr. HOGGE: At Question time to-day I put a question by Private Notice to the Chief Secretary, in which I asked for details of the arrest of Mrs. J. Annan Bryce, the wife of a recent Member of this House and sister-in-law of a previous Irish Chief Secretary. She was arrested at Holyhead on Friday by agents of the Government, deported to Dublin, and imprisoned in the Bridewell, at Dublin, though, as far as one can gather from newspaper accounts, the only offence of which she was guilty was that she was on her way to address a meeting in Wales, at Tonypandy, on the subject of reprisals. As a matter of fact, the policy of the Government so far with regard to reprisals has been, if not to conceal, at least not to publish any evidence. The Chief Secretary was asked to-day whether he would publish evidence taken at inquiries into alleged reprisals, and he replied that he was of opinion that no good purpose would be served by the publication of this evidence; so I think it is reasonable to say that so far the Government have not sought the opportunity of giving to this country any evidence upon which the reprisals that have been taken in Ireland have been based. We passed the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act, and that Act gave the Government certain powers to deal with a situation which they could not apparently deal with without those powers, and I would like to know whether an Act of Parliament passed for the specific purpose of dealing with a trouble in Ireland runs in this country. It may be that the reasons for the arrest of Mrs. Annan Bryce are other than those that are stated publicly. If I remember right, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said she was suspected of carrying to this country seditious documents. It may well be that my right hon. Friend's defence of her deportation to Dublin may be on the ground entirely that she was supposed to be in possession of these seditious documents and that therefore the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act would apply in that particular case.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,

The House was adjourned at Seven minutes after Eight of the clock till To-morrow.